tv C-SPAN Weekend CSPAN September 19, 2010 1:00pm-6:00pm EDT
porteous. they heard testimony from louis marcotte who served 18 months for bribing a sheriff's authorities. this portion is just under two hours. >> i apologize rose no coffee. as long as there are seven of us on the day as, you are free to wander back and get coffee. i want to thank everyone. we had a long and productive day yesterday. let me do a little housekeeping in terms of the schedule. we are supposed to have a series of three votes beginning at 11:00. so it is my intention to go without a break until those votes are called.
wait until five minutes or 10 minutes into the first vote and adjourned until approximately 11:40 so everyone will have an opportunity to cast votes and we do not have to run back and forth. as soon as the third vote is cast, i will ask you to come back quickly so we can get in an hour between 11:40 and 12:40. then we will break for lunch and resume at 2:30. it is my intention to stay as late, almost as late as we did yesterday and hopefully we can get a lot more done. there was an objection yesterday come at a -- a motion by the house to admit into evidence that was 302.
we have visited with our counsel and senator hatch and i have visited about it. the inclination is to not admit the 300 to as evidence for the same reasons we did not grand jury testimony in general. i think it is probably not appropriate for it to be admitted into evidence. using any message you have to compete or refresh recollection is ok, but we're not going to admit the 300 to as evidence in and of itself. so i wanted to give you that decision. the house has 15 hours and 40 minutes remaining. judge porteous has 16 hours and 40 minutes remaining. it is my understanding that you
have decided not to call mr. levenson as a witness in the house's case. >> that is correct. >> it is my understanding that you do want to call him as a witness in your case? >> we do. we are prepared now or he could be held over. >> i am trying to let you all try your case is and i think it is not appropriate to interrupt the house case with the witness for judge porteous, so i will let the house finished their case and he will have to stay over. i would ask if possible, unless you have a really good argument not to, obviously the government is going to pay for him to stay here until your case begins. we ask you to put him on at the beginning of your case so he is not held over through the weekend. >> i would just point out that the committee has previously instructed that there were other cancellations that occurred
right before the start of the trial. we are on instructions to put him forward. this is having a destructive impact on our case because our bankruptcy witnesses and lawyers must leave. we have a very short time before they have to leave. that's one of the reasons i suggested they could pass the witness today. if we don't do that, we need to move our bankruptcy people because they are leaving town. we're shifting one of their previous witnesses forward to accommodate mr. green died. we will try to get mr. levenson as early as possible, but we need to move those witnesses out. >> are the bankruptcy would this is under subpoena? >> several of them are paid for experts. but like mr. greendyke, we were told to call him early, so we shifted all our witnesses and
now our witnesses have reservation complaints and they have canceled -- we talked to them this morning and there is no cancellation of mr. levenson. >> why don't we get started and over the lunch break, we will have an opportunity to discuss this as a matter of housekeeping. i will gently point out with a smile on my face that perhaps this can move along more quickly and we will have a chance to get too bankruptcy lawyers and mr. levinson and the judge all before we finish work on thursday. >> in terms of our allotted times, just to give the senators a heads up, the main for witnesses, we have gone through two of them. we have two more with a big chunk of time and then the times become much shorter. we have two more witnesses for both sides have a large investment. can i raise one more issue? as the committee is aware, the
night before the trial, we received additional discovery and want to thank the committee and staff for trying to get the department justice to release that information. i know that staff worked very hard against a reluctant agency. with that information came a letter from ronald rice, the assistant attorney general. he stated the department of justice would not be turning over memorandum specifically on why judge porteous was not charged with a crime. the letter actually concedes that they did turn over that same information in prior impeachments and concede that indeed in the nixon proceedings, they turned it over and makes the curious point that there is a trial in that case -- in our view, that's even more important as evidence when there was not a trial. we would like to ask the committee again to point out
that this is a very conflicted, and we do not see it as a well based reason to turn over the evidence that turned over to other accused judges. we would like to enter this letter into the record as evidence as porteous exit 2005. at minimum, it should be in the case. >> it was turned over in nixon because of prosecutorial misconduct. we have a subpoena under advisement as we speak. is there -- said the -- is there an objection? >> there is no objection. >> the letter will be included as an exhibit and we will work on trying to get all the information we can carry >> thank you. i want to raise one additional issue. the house has scheduled a series of votes at 6:00. we would not lead -- we would not need to leave well into that
and then come back but i want to make sure the senate is aware of that. >> we are happy to accommodate your schedule in that regard. are there several in a row question reflects the first is a 15 minute vote and then we will have several others after that. >> we will work with you to make sure you do not miss the boat. you may call your next witness. >> of the house calls -- the house calls louis marcotte. >> will witness please rise?
do you swear the evidence you should give in this case pending before the united states shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> thank you. would you please state your full name. -- turn the microphone on. >> i am louis marcotte the third. >> where you live? >> in new orleans, louisiana. >> what do you do for a living? >> i have a clothing store called italy direct. >> what type of clothing is that? >> is an italian boutiques that sell high and clothing. >> tell the senators about yourself. where did you grow up? >> i grew up in a little town on the other side of the river from new orleans. >> what was your financial
background growing up? >> we grew up 30 pour, me and my family. we had a two-room house with six of us in it. we barely made in need. >> what kind of education do you have? >> i graduated from high school and i have one year of college. >> at some point in your life to go into the bail bond business? >> yes i did, around 1979. >> how did that come about? >> i went to work for a bail bondsman in the area. when he died, i opened up -- >> what did you do for him? >> i was a janitor, working ed cleaning his building, and being trashed and stuff like that. >> at some point, you came to start your own company? >> yes.
after he died, i saw an opportunity across and the jefferson parish courthouse and i opened an office there. it was called the blue house. >> do you remember the approximate year? >> around 1982 or 1983. >> what was the name of your company? >> bail bonds unlimited. >> did any other family members work there? >> yes. while family work there. my mom, a sister, my dad, and my other sister. >> your two sisters. >> yes. >> this was a mom-and-pop business starting out? >> yes. >> what did laurie do? >> she handled the control of the business. all of the accounting and she did sales as well. >> was she knowledgeable about the operations of the company? >> yes. >> did she work closely with you? >> very close.
>> by the late 1990's, what was the size of your business? >> in the late 90's, probably 6 million or 7 million in premium. >> by the time the business closed, what were you doing? >> somewhere around $30 million. >> how many states real operating in? >> 34 states. >> how many employees did you have? >> 300 employees and a thousand licensed employees in the field. >> what was life in the bail bond business like? >> for a very long time, i slept in front of the jail. as the families went in to get bonds, ran behind them. >> he worked long hours? >> yes. i slept in my car and i slept in my office. >> wide you do that? >> because when someone gets
arrested, the families go to jail first. if you are parked out front of the jail and sleeping there, you will see the families walked in and you can hustle them and bring them back to your office and write your bond. >> is it fair to say you were in the bail bond business until about 2003? >> yes, sir. >> where you put out of business as a result of a federal criminal investigation? >> yes, sir, i was. >> can you explain the bail bond business to the senate? can you explain how you as a bail bondsman make money in the business? >> a bail bondsman is nothing more than an insurance agent. we make commission to sell in the policy. the amount of money make determines the contract you have with the insurance company. if you want to take all the risk, you make 90 cents on the dollar. if you want to take all the
risk, you make 50 cents on the dollar. in my case, i took all the risk and make 90 cents on the dollar. >> the magistrate would set a bond? >> yes. the magistrate would set the bond every morning. >> if the prisoner cannot meet the bond, he would work with a bail bondsman, correct? >> yes. >> how does that arrangement work? >> if i caught them at the jail at 3:00 in the morning and sat them in my office until i could get bonds said before the magistrate -- >> but the magistrate set a bond for $50,000. what is your arrangement? >> i would ask the family if they have $5,000 to get them out of jail. >> is that a standard rate? 10%? >> yes, it is. >> did you have an interest in how high the bond was set? >> yes. >> how does that work?
>> if it was a $50,000 bond and -- if there was no bond, you can make a $100,000 bond and i get a $10,000 fee added it, i ask for the highest bond i can get. >> if the bond dorsett too high and the prisoner could not make it, did you make any money? >> no, i could not. >> if the bond were set really low or if the prisoner of war released on their own recognizance, would you make any money? >> i cannot make any money. >> if the bond is set at $100,000, how much would you make? >> with my contract, $9,000. >> so the bond would be $10,000 and you make 9000. where does the other $1,000 go?
>> to the insurance company. the insurance company was held harmless and was liable for the $100,000. all they did was supply the paper for us to post at the jail. it's not real dollars, it's just paper. >> in louisiana in the 1990-1994 timeframe, i want you to walk the senators through how bonds were typically set and what your day would typically be like. who would typically set the bond? >> the magistrate. >> describe the circumstances when you want to avoid the magistrate and go to the judge to set the bond. >> i would get the bond said before the magistrate came in in the morning. so he had no chance of getting released on a free bond. >> if you were concerned the magistrate would release him on his own recognizance, what would you do? >> i would get the judge to set the bond so i could make the
money. >> if you thought the magistrate set the bond to high, what would you do? >> i will go to a judge that would reduce it for me. >> were there times needed access to a judge for competitive purposes because there were other bail bondsman -- other bail bondsman in the courthouse? >> yes. there were plenty of times we would go to the judge with the request and the request that bail bonds are limited, we ask the judge and while the request was in the judge's office, we would have them call the bond in until we have an agent at the jail ready to post it so we would not lose it. >> if you wanted to avoid the magistrate, could go to the courthouse? >> not any judge. >> at different times in those 20 years, it was different judges. >> when you talk to a judge
about a bond, what a prosecutor be present? >> no, it would not. >> every time a judge set bond for which a prisoner could afford the premium, is that money in your pocket? >> yes, it is. >> did there come a time you met judge porteous? >> yes. >> how do you recall meeting him? >> i had a guy named adam barnett. his dad was a lawyer in the courthouse for a long time. adam had connections with a few different judges because of his father. adam introduced me to porteous, and his secretary. >> he was another bail bondsman? >> yes. >> how did you form a relationship with judge porteous? >> by meeting him and getting closer to him because adam introduced me to him, all of this sudden, he started spending
more time with me than adam. >> outages spend that time with him? >> dinners, lunches, more lunches and dinners. lunch twice a week. something like that. several times a week. >> he started to get to know his secretary. -- you started to get to know his secretary. >> yes, i did. >> overtime, can you describe the frequency with which you took the judge to lunch? >> several times a week. two times would be a good guess. >> how would these lunches be arranged? did you call him or did he call you? >> some cases, i would call him, some cases he would call me. >> was it just you and judge porteous?
>> not necessarily. most of the time, a group of people with a. >> who would that be? >> a few people from my office. if we could invite other judges or anybody connected with the criminal justice system, we would try to bring them to the table as well. >> did you include rhonda? >> yes, i did. >> did you let him invite whoever he wanted to? >> yes. >> did judge porteous know he was permitted to invite other persons? >> yes. it was an unspoken. we were ok with anyone he wanted to bring. >> described judge porteous' personality in these lunches cluster >> a liter. a very funny guy. very smart. >> did you want him to have a
good time? >> i wanted him to have an excellent time. >> was a good for you to be seen with him? >> yes. it would make me look more like a businessman instead of a bail bondsman -- of a bail bondsman. the bail bondsman does not have a real good reputation. > what was judged porteous' reputation? >> he was known as a leader. >> describe these lunches. >> we would sit down and drink and eat. we would talk about different things. but we always talked about bailout. >> how long would they go on for? >> an hour, to our -- two hours, sometimes five hours. >> all afternoon? >> yes. >> a lot of drinking? >> lots of drinking.
>> where did you take him? ruth's chris steak house, the beef connection, salvatore's. >> what types of restaurants are these? >> high end restaurants. >> like riskless steak house that might be known outside of new orleans -- like ruth's chris steak house. or the other restaurants comparable? >> yes, in some cases they were. >> i can't -- >> i cannot remember going to get loose sandwich shop, but it has been a long time. >> did you enjoy these lunches? >> i did enjoy them. at some point, i was not enjoying them anymore because [inaudible]
>> could you take all afternoon off and do this kind of thing? >> in some cases i could and some cases i could not. in some cases i did not want to. >> @ do you have any sense for when these lunches started? >> it has been several years. '94, '95. it has been a long time. >> could it have been earlier? >> it could have been earlier than that. >> do you recall when you first met judge porteous? >> sometime in the '90s. maybe 89 or 88, but i don't think any earlier than that. >> did you start taking him to lunch not long after you first met him? >> it took beloeil. maybe six months or something.
>> by the end of his tenure, would you take how often would you take him and others to lunch? >> -- >> at the end of the time he was on the state bench? >> about twice a week would be a good guess. >> who paid for these lunches? >> bbu -- >> meaning? >> bail bondsman and limited. >> , a times did judge porteous -- how many times did judge porteous pay for lunch? >> never, as i recall. >> was the money you spend money you spent on judge porteous? >> i looked at as an investment.
>> for whose benefit? >> for my benefit, and some cases, his benefit. >> let me turn now to the subject of automobiles. did you have anything to do with his cars in the time prior to 1994? >> it is hard to say. the time frame -- was at 93, 92? i fixed cars for he and his family. >> what do you mean by fixing cars? >> tires, radios, transmission, bodyworks. every time i took one of his cars, i filled up with gas and washed it as well. i wanted to make a statement when i did something for him.
>> how did that start. >> it started with adam barnett bringing the keys. >> he was the earlier bail bondsman? >> yes. he started bringing the keys and he wanted to share the expense. he pledged -- he paid half and i paid half. at some point, i started paying the whole thing and edged adam out of the way because i had more money. adam was probably not as trustworthy guide. >> can you describe these cars? >> they were old and kind of be up. >> how many cars are talking about here? >> three or four cars. >> just for the judge himself? >> know, for his kids and him.
maybe i repaired his wife's car. i'm not exactly sure. but his kids and his car. >> how did it come to your attention that these cars needed repairs and so on? >> there were different times, like we would be at lunch and we would be car -- at lunch and he would say tommy's car is broke or something and we would come and get the key. >> how frequently did to make repairs to the cars? >> it has been a long time, but it could have been once a month or once every three months. >> do you remember the names of some of the auto repair establishments that did the
repairs? >> yes. one of them was tony [unintelligible] i put tires on and all the electronics put a stereo in his car. there were different mechanics i got work done on carburetors and mechanical problems, transmissions. i think there's a transmission shop on manhattan boulevard. i don't remember the name. i know we put a transmission in one of the cars or rebuilt one. >> who is just due on? >> he's my brother-in-law. >> he was married to lisa? >> he was. >> to the work for you? >> yes. >> who is aubrey wallace? >> he is another guy who worked for me. >> did he have a nickname? >> skeeter. >> did he and jeff have anything
to do with taking care of judge porteous'cars. >> at that time, i never wanted to leave the bell office, so they were my runners. >> what do you mean by runners? >> it would it bring the cars and fix stuff. any thing that would not get me out of my office because i didn't want to lose a sale. >> did the judge ever tell you he needed a car work? >> yes. i have been at lunch when he said tommy's car needs to be fixed. here are the keys. >> who paid for the repairs? >> i did. >> did judge porteous ever reimburse you? >> no, he did not. >> did you ever provide home repairs to judge porteous? >> yes. during a storm, some of his sense blue down.
i had jeff and skiers do repairs on his fans. -- jeff and skeeter do repairs on his sense. >> did they have to purchase construction material? >> yes. >> you say just may have paid $200 for the boards. would he have a better sense of how much is spent? >> i was so involved with so many other things that it wasn't really a priority. >> did jeff and skeeter really do that work? >> yes, they did. >> in about 1993 or 1994, did you have occasion to arrange a trip to las vegas with judge porteous? >> yes. >> do you recall how that came about? >> yes. i wanted to get closer to him and i figured if we went on a trip together, he would build a better, closer relationship.
>> do you recall what your that was? >> if you say 94 or 93, i don't know exactly. it has been 20 years. >> who went on that trip? >> to of my buddies at the time -- philip o'neill and bruce [unintelligible] to other lawyers and meath's. there were few other people and a few of porteouss friends. >> judge porteous and some of his friends? >> yes. >> why were the lawyers invited? >> the stain that the bail bond industry has on a national level, i wanted to meet some lawyers so it would not look so
bad. it would not look so bad it with him going to las vegas with some of the lawyers. >> who invited the lawyers? >> i invited the lawyers. i said let's go to las vegas with porteous. we can develop a closer relationship if we wanted him and dine him. >> and it included bruce [unintelligible] >> yes. >> who paid for that trip? >> bruce, philip m. myself. >> how to pay for that trip? >> between my office and bruce and philip, we round up enough cash to pay for his trip to vegas. we gave the cash to rhonda who deposited it in her checking account and cut the checks for the biggest tickets. >> run the being the secretary for judge porteous?
>> yes. >> why was the payment of the trip arranged in that fashion? >> because we were trying to hide it from the world. >> what do you remember judge porteous doing in an las vegas? >> the whole time he drank and gamble. >> why did you do all this for judge porteous? >> awarded to better my business and be able to get the bonds that -- i wanted to better my business and get the bonds done. >> how did he help you make money? >> he helped me make money with bonds. he helped me make money by grinning other people to help me. >> let's talk about the bonds first. when you say he helped make bonds and that helped to make money, what did he do in particular that help you? >> he was available to me to do
bonds at my request. >> would this be a situation where they had set the bond or set the bond to high? >> cases where the bonds were too high or cases where the bonds were not set at all. >> you could go to him to set bonds? >> yes. >> to go of to him for regard in anything else? >> to reduce and set. >> describe how you went about having judge porteous said bonds? >> we had some worksheets and what we would do is the work she would have the request the defendant could make in a bond. we would get the bonds set to the amount the defendant could make. >> would you go to his chambers
or how did you do this? >> there were different ways. we would go to his chambers or we would drop them off with rhonda. we would call at the house and sometimes at lunch he would approve the worksheet and rhonda would take the work sheet back to the courts and call the bond in. >> did you ever need to get in touch with him on the court was not in session like at night or over the weekend? >> yes. >> how did she do that? >> i called him. >> on the phone? >> describe how that would happen. >> judge, i have this bond, if you see fit, this guy can make 100,000. >> was rhonda important to you in dealing with judge porteous? >> she was the gatekeeper.
>> described the conversation was like about setting bonds. what would you tell him? >> if i did not have a worksheet or if i had a worksheet, i would say judge, this is the kind of bond a defendant can make. >> was it important for you to tell him this was the about the defendant could afford? >> yes. the bond i would ask for would maximize the profits of my company. >> when you went to him to set the bonds, you would have the amount in mind to set. >> yes. >> how would you know what the person could afford? >> there were a few ways we would know -- we would take an application, take a credit report to see if there are financially able to pay a certain amount of bond.
>> the important thing was how much they could afford to pay, not how much it would be likely there would have to put up for a particular crime. you were looking to maximize your return. that was based on what? >> profits for our company. >> what is the maximum profit you could make from individual prisoner? >> by being able to post a bond and get 10%. >> what would be the maximum amount they could pay? >> i don't know if i am understanding the question. 10%. >> the information you gathered from the credit records, from the interviews, from talking to family members allow you to ascertain how much money they had. how would you utilize that information in setting the bond? >> as far as the credit report,
you get the history of someone's credit. >> once you knew how much money they could gather, what would you do with that? >> i would set the bond or a set it to the amount the defendant did make. -- the defendant could make. >> in your conversations with judge porteous, did you ever tell him what prisoner could afford? >> yes. i would always say, if you could see fit in setting this bond, this is where i would like to have it said. >> to be clear, you would on occasion tell the judge he could only make a $5,000 bond or $10,000 bond or whenever? >> yes. >> was the judge aware that when he said bonds at your request that you made money? >> anyone -- they would have to be a idiot not to know.
>> you went to all the judges to set bond, correct? >> not all of them. most of them. >> were there particular bonds he went to judge porteous to set? >> yes. >> what were they? >> fugitive bonds, probation bonds, probation bonds on the other judges that did not want -- that were not his case. a fugitive bond -- do you want me to explain? >> explained why he would go to judge porteous when you had another judge handling the case? >> i would go because i would get it done with him. there are some judges i knew i could not get it done with. if somebody had a fugitive bond or extradition bond and he's wanted in washington on a burglary, i would ask them to
set a fugitive bond fund and the guy can get released in jefferson and they would have a hearing and determine whether they have to come back here or not. it would get the defendant out. >> tell the senators what split bonds are. >> the judge sets a $200,000 bond on a guy. the family -- we do credit reports and see what they can make. if they can make 100 and the bond is 200, if we only get 10,000 on a 200, we don't make any money because there are
other fees that are at the jail. on bail, they have a 40% tax at the jail. by the time i pay the insurance company and the time i pay the security company, i would not have any money and i have a liability. what i would do is get a family member to come in -- it is called unsecured sure the. i would have a family member come in and he could be joe blow worth zip. as long as he has a valid id, he signed for $100,000 on his name and we post a $100,000 commercial bond. >> if he only had $10,000, he could maximize that on 100,000 and it would be on somebody else's sure eddie? >> yes. basically promissory note. the hundred thousand commercial was worth $100,000. >> was it helpful to you that
judge was going to be split and reduced bonds others were not? >> very. there was hardly anybody we could not get out of jail. >> did you ever talk about bond setting on the days you took him to lunch? >> yes. >> before, during and after lunch? >> we showed up -- as our relationship grew, we started bringing worksheets to the table. rhonda would be their -- he would not call the men from the lunch table, but he would approve them and when rhonda would get back with five, six, 10 worksheets, she would call the jail. >> would you go back to his chambers after lunch? >> yes. if i did not see him, i would seek rhonda and see if he did the bonds.
most of the time, they were done. >> let's say you drop $100 or $200 for lunch. right there at the lunch, you could talk to the judge about bonds or the back to his chambers after lunch and get him to sign bonds? >> yes. did any of the conversations concerning repairs to his car occur in his chambers when he was setting bonds? >> i think more at the lunch table. here is the keys, a car is broken again or rhonda would call. but after she called, 10 minutes later, we would say can you do this bond? he was a little more apt to do things when i was fixing cars and we was going to lunch together. >> i previously asked you about
jeff doohan. when he started working for you, what did he do? >> he started like i did, as a janitor. cleaning up, running errands, i only have so many errands to run, but i have a lot. it was not a full-time job, so i wanted him working in the bail office. at some point, he started answering the phone and waiting on people to roll out of jail. when somebody rolls out of jail, we have to take a picture and everything like that. it became advantageous to me to get him license. >> when he first worked for you, could he right bonds? >> no, he could not. >> why not? >> because he had a conviction. >> what was the conviction? >> a burglary. >> a felony?
>> yes trip >> why does that prevent him from writing bonds? >> because unless the commission approves you, you cannot be convicted of anything. i knew i could not get the commissioner to waive it. so we thought it would be easier to try to get the conviction set aside and have his record expunged. >> is there anything you did to help jeff and help your business to deal with the felony conviction? >> yes. what i did was, if i remember clearly, jeff's case was not allotted to porteous. it was allotted to another judge. another judge had jeff on probation.
i wanted to give porteous to talk to that judge and see if you expansion and set-aside jeff's conviction so he could become a bail bondsman. >> to you know whether judge porteous did that or did he expended himself? >> he said he asked the judge. i don't know if he actually did because i was not there. at some point, he said aside the conviction. >> judge porteous did? >> yes. he expunges his record. >> did you personally have a conversation with judge porteous concerning that request? >> yes. maybe a couple of months -- what are you going to do and what are
you going to do it? at some point, he did it. >> how certain are you that he expunges his conviction at your request? >> i was able to get him a bail license. >> was there anything about at action that stands out that is particularly unusual? >> yes. he set aside the conviction and expunged the record. on another judge's case. >> whose case was it? >> i think it was richard's case. judge richard. >> why do you recall that. -- why the recall that? >> i think it was. it was definitely another judge's case. >> let me turn to the summer of 1994. were you ever aware judge porteous was under consideration to be nominated as
a federal judge? >> yes. >> were you ever interviewed by the fbi as part of a background check? >> yes, i was. >> with connection to your testimony, as your memory been refreshed on how many times you were interviewed? >> yes. >> how many times were you interviewed? >> yes up -- i was interviewed twice. >> did judge porteous know you were going to be interviewed? >> yes. >> how did she know that? >> because he told me. >> you have been asked about what you set on the background check on previous occasions. first, the fbi agent's write up of the background check reflects the said -- we have a slide to pull up here -- can you enlarge that? taking these sentences one
time, the first sentence refers to alcohol. you say the candidate will have a beer or two at lunch, referring to judge porteous, is that a true statement? >> that's false. >> would you indicate for the record what exhibit you are referring to? >> i'm sorry. it is part of the exhibit 69b. >> if i may, that is the base number from the fbi's background -- >> you are going to need to speak into the microphone. >> this is port 472. exhibit 69b is the background check file. >> we were talking about why you knew the statement he had a beer
or to the lunch was false. how did you know? >> because i watched and drink 5, 6, 7, absolut straight up. >> why would you lie for him? >> because through the years, he was good to me and i wanted to see him get his federal appointment. at that point, we still had time left with him. if i would have told the truth, i would not have any reason to tell the truth. i wanted to see him get what he wanted. >> the second sentence states you have no knowledge of the candidates financial situation. was that true? >> that was not the truth because you could tell by his surroundings with the cars and there were old and they were broken. you could see he is having financial problems. >> did he have some lifestyle
issues? >> yes. he gambled a lot and he drank. >> did you know those are costly to him on? >> yes, i did. >> why didn't you tell the fbi that judge porteous had financial problems? >> because i wanted him to be confirmed. i was trying to protect them. i wanted him to get his lifetime appointment. >> the third is the sentence that reports that you were "not aware of anything in the candidate's background might be the basis of attentive influence, pressure, coercion, compromise or that would impact negatively on the candidate's character, reputation, judgment or discretion." do you see that? >> not really. >> you heard that? >> yes. >> you were aware of everything you just testified to. you knew that your own relationship was improper. >> yes. >> you knew that you could not take a judge to las vegas, did
you question mark >> yes. >> you were deliberately hiding the full extent of your relationship with judge porteous? >> yes. >> why? >> to protect him, and to protect myself. >> on a separate interview, you were asked about a particular case called the keys klein case. do you remember that? >> yes. >> that involved an allegation that the judge received money to lower bail in that case. >> yes. >> did you have firsthand knowledge of the allegations? >> not firsthand, but yes. the lawyer told me that keith cline was in his office and he felt like he was wired and was asking questions. >> the lawyer being whose lawyer? >> the lawyer who got the bond reduced. >> in your interviews with the
fbi, what was your motive? >> to make sure porteous got his lifetime appointment. >> did you feel that you're telling the fbi what judge porteous wanted you to tell them? >> yes. >> did you feel your interview with the fbi was part of the relationship that you described where you would do things for him and he would do things for you? >> yes. >> did you have conversations with judge porteous after either of those interviews about the interviews? >> yes. >> when he told me they were coming to see me, two or three other times when we went to lunch, we talked about -- he asked me to or three times to make sure everything was clarified. >> what you tell him you told the fbi? >> thumbs up. >> in the summer of 1994, do you
recall making any requests of judge porteous regarding aubrey wallace? >> yes. >> what do you recall asking judge porteous? >> if we could get his record expunged so he could become a licensed bail agent. >> do you recall having a conversation or more than one conversation? >> again, until i could finally get him to do it. >> do you recall judge porteou'' response? >> he put me off and put me off. he said he's not going to let anything stand in the way of the being confirm to my lifetime appointment. after that is done, i will do it. >> did he say why he wanted to put off until after the confirmation? >> again, he did not want
anything to get in the way of the lifetime of women. >> what kind of things could get in the way? >> it the government found out some of the things he was doing with me, that would probably in tear him from getting his appointment. >> would there be public record of that? >> yes, there would. it would come out in the newspaper or -- >> did judge porteous to he said he would do? >> he did. >> it he set aside wallis's burglary conviction? >> yes, he did. >> was after he was confirmed by the senate? >> yes, it was. >> did you understand this was something he did for you or something he did for wallace? >> is something he did for me. >> was this something worked out between you and judge porteous? >> yes. >> just to be clear, if he could
not help you as you testified in setting bond and taking other judicial actions and lending prestige with others, would you have taken him out to lunch to the extent he did? >> no. >> would you have taken him to las vegas? >> no, i would not have. >> would you have prepared as cars? >> no, i would not have. >> after he was confirmed as a federal judge, could he still help u.s. he did it as a state judge? >> he could help me, but not as far as reducing bonds. >> he could not set bonds for you. did you go to judge porteous and ask him to help you with the rules in u.s. district court regarding the issuance of commercial bonds? >> yes, i did. there is a magistrate and i asked what he talk to him because they were taking a 10% deposit. when you put up 10% with the courts, you eliminate the bail
bondsman. i asked porteous to see if he could change the bonds to commercial bonds. he told me he went to him, but did he really, i don't know. i had that conversation with him. >> did you attempt to maintain a relationship even after he became a federal judge and continue to have lunch with him? >> yes. >> why? >> i thought it would be important that a federal judge sitting next to me. if i brought people to that table, he would bring schrempp. -- he would bring shrimp. >> did you have him a recruit a new judge question >> did you retreat -- did you have him recruit other people you want to request quaestor >> yes. >> did you make any requests regarding judge [unintelligible]
>> what did you ask judge porteous about him? >> i talked to him -- i would like him to step into your shoes. >> judge porteous is a federal judge and judge [unintelligible] is a state judge. do you know if he said anything to him? i think he did or he told me he did and did not. >> after judge porteous told you he spoke to the other judge, how did your relationship with the other judge develop? >> it got stronger. i had a relationship a little bit before porteous, but porteous made it stronger. >> in what respect? >> he was a leader and had always been a leader.
everyone follows the leader. >> did he become more helpful in sorting bonds? >> yes, he was. >> did you start doing things for the other judge? >> yes. what did you do? >> i did repairs on his house. i basically started taking him dinners and lunches and made one trip to [unintelligible] with him. >> what is that? >> it is a casino on the mississippi. >> in 2002, you were under criminal investigation, correct? >> yes. >> were you aware you are under surveillance? >> no, sir. >> heavy seen the fbi surveillance tape of you entering cameral's restaurant? >> yes. -- enteringremerill's
called his office and invited. >> he was a federal judge at this time? >> yes, sir. >> why did you want him there? >> i wanted to talk about bail and how good is for the system. i wanted her to start burling bonds. i needed as many people as i could get. >> what purpose did you get him to fill out during that lunch? >> again, by being in your and talking about bail. a state judge sitting with a federal judge, you know, it brings some power to the table. >> let me assure you the receipt from that much. do you recognize this?
>> yes, sir. that is my signature. >> first of all, madam chairman, i ask this be identified as house exhibit 375. >> it will be so identified in the record. >> how much was this for? >> former $14. >> -- $414. >> you can also see the restaurant check. >> yes, sir. >> anything on that check to let you know that he was present? >> absolut. >> i am going to show you a videotape now. as i do, i want you to identify who was on the screen that you can identify.
madam chairman, this is house exhibit 48. >> that is joan's car. there is porteous. there is judge porteous's secretary. there i am. there's steve. judge binge. >> that is the last one coming out there? >> yes, sir. >> let me show you how to exhibit 241, which is a still photograph from that video tape.
who are the four people in this photograph? >> steve, me, and i cannot see who the other two are on the right. >> is that judge porteous? >> porteous, me, and -- i do not know. it is kind of blurry. >> but you do see yourself, judge porteous? >> yes, sir. >> was a public knowledge you were under investigation? >> yes, sir. >> they request come from you from judge porteous's lawyer?
>> yes. he wanted me to sign a document saying that porteous did not take anything of value to me. >> let me show you how as exhibit 280. we will blow this up so you can see. do you recognize your signature on this document? >> yes, sir. >> what is the stocks >> that is an affidavit saying that he did not take anything of value, money, or any kind of quid pro quo action. >> who prepared that affidavit? >> his lawyer. >> let's go through the paragraphs briefly. directory says, "at no time have i ever given anything of value
to porteous for reducing or valuing any bond." you find this true. >> completely false. >> yet you signed this? what is not true? >> the meals, cars, wining and dining, the trips, all of that was for him to do bonds. >> why did you sign this if this was not true? >> well, i was trying to protect him. >> the rest of this document has to do with the bond case we referred to earlier which was the subject of the confirmation check, was it not? the fbi was interested in that. >> yes, sir. >> do you know why that was included? >> because he thought maybe i knew something about him taking
money from the lawyer? i cannot read it. >> did you make this false statement to help judge porteous? >> yes, i did. >> just like to make false statements with the background check? >> yes, i did. >> was this a continuation of the same relationship where you did -- were you did things for him and he did things for you? >> yes, sir. >> did you plead guilty to a federal corruption offense? >> yes, i did. >> i represent exhibit house 71- a. alleges on or about 1991 you commenced in a conspiracy in persons known and unknown.
who did you have a corrupt conspiratorial relationship with? >> porteous. >> you have pleaded guilty to have it -- to having a guilt -- a conspiratorial relationship with him. this describes the things you give judges and the conduct of the judges as follows -- it was a further part of the conspiracy that in return for things of value, certain judges would make themselves available, quickly responded to the request of bail bonds unlimited and split bonds to maximize bbu's profit, minimize liability. it was a further part of the conspiracy that too well allowbuu to maximize money they would do bond splitting. the conspirator judge wood said
the commercial portion of the bond to an amount the defendant could afford and would set the balance in some other manner. bbu would post the commercial portion of the bond and collect a portion as commission. this practice of loud -- allowed bbu to maximize profits and limit liability. did you go to jail for the things you gave judges? >> yes, i did. >> what was your sentence? >> 37 months. >> that is exhibit 71-e. >> was that we do? >> i was on the drug program and ended up doing 18 months in jail. >> did you lose your job? >> yes, i did. >> you can no longer be in the bail bond business because you corrupt the gave thanks to public officials? >> yes, sir. >> at least one public official remained on the bench.
is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> no further questions. >> mr. turley? >> thank you, madame chair. good morning, mr. marcotte. we have met before. i did your deposition earlier. >> yes, sir. basic's start with some questions to clarify the record. most of these or yes or no, but feel free to answer as you wish. you never give cash directly to porteous judge at any time did you? >> not directly. >> to never give a campaign contribution to him, did you? >> no, i did not.
>> when she became a federal judge, he never said a bond for you, did he? >> know, he did not. >> he testified that he never gave you a kick back or that you never gave the porteous judge a kickback on bonds. is that correct? >> not in cash. >> now, we were talking about the bond process. some of us are familiar with that process and some of us may not be. >> yes, sir. >> is it true that if a district attorney for assistant district attorney objected to a bond that the judges would reject a bond? >> yes, sir. >> was it your experience with judge porteous as well? >> yes, sir. >> was it in your experience that if they've -- they were
dealing with and expungement that the judge would agree as well? >> yes, sir. >> in 1993-1994, we have talked about that time, but how many bondsmen were working in gretna? >> i would say maybe three or four agencies. two or three. which you previously testified that even with two or three bondsman that you're handling 95% of the bonds or more. is that correct? >> it was a long time ago, you know? i would say probably 90% of the bonds. >> during that time, -- first of all, let me ask you, would it surprise you going earlier in
1986, for example, would it surprise you to learn that in that given year there were more than 3200 bonds that pass gretna court house? >> know, it would not surprise me. >> this cd is marked exhibit 2001. as evidence, i will be referring to it. >> madam chair, if i could have a moment? madame chair, we have no objection. >> the exhibit will be entered into the record. >> would it surprise you, and mr.marcotte, that there were 51 bonds signed by judge porteous? >> it would not surprise me.
>> madam chair, we have separated them and referred to the earlier in the opening statement. we would like to exhibit them -- label them exhibit 2002. >> without objection. >> would it surprise you that in february of that year that judge porteous signed 41 bonds? >> of what year? >> in 1986. >> it would not surprise me. >> madam chair, we have separated those bonds out for the record and are marking them exhibit 2003. >> the record will note. >> mr. marcotte, would you be surprised that in september 1986 that judge porteous cited 29 bonds? >> know, it would not surprise me. >> that is our final exhibit and we have a market that exhibit
2004, madam chair. >> can i ask what you mean by "signed"? like that he was the judge who signed and approved the bonds. >> ok. released them? or just set them? >> that he approved the bond and he was the judge who had signed it. >> and they were released on his signature? >> presumably that is what is in the record. those have been marked exhibit 2004 and we offer these to be introduced as evidence. >> without objection. >> ok. i want to try to get an idea what disintegration was like in gretna. during most of this time when he was a judge, was jefferson parish under court order for overcrowding?
>> yes, sir, they were. >> that was a district court order, because it required mandatory releases of prisoners. >> yes, they were at a certain capacity. >> it was a capacity for most of that time, was it not? >> yes, sir. >> is it true that, i think, that during the months and years that as soon as people were brought in to the overcrowded prison that people had to be released to satisfy the court order? >> yes, sir. >> this was a big concern for judges, was it not? >> for som. >> some did not care? >> some did not care. some just wanted -- did not want to put their name on anything so they said the bond really high.
judges't a problem that discussed that many of these prisoners who were released on mandatory court orders from overcrowding disappeared? >> yes, sir. >> is it your experience that the chances that a person will return to the court after release is higher if they have a bond on them? >> yes, it is. >> why is that? >> because they will have someone hunting them. >> eu? >> yes. >> otherwise, if someone like you is not looking for these guys, what usually have to happen for these bail jumpers to be caught? >> if they get pulled over at a traffic stop then they will the rest them. >> so is accidental. >> yes, sir. >> the police in diligretna did
not really go look for bail jumpers. >> in some cases they did, but most of the time they did not. >> thinking. -- thank you. reduce say the higher the bond was set the more likely someone would be to come back to court? >> yes, sir. we had talked about this idea of a magistrate judge and i want to clarify something. people may not be familiar with this. a magistrate during that time was a judge. correct? cracks in some cases, it was appointed lawyer. >> during this period, was there a magistrate system who was a judge who was selected to serve for a week to handle bonds? >> yes, sir. >> it was done on rotation, is that correct? >> yes. what's a lot of judges did not like that duty.
>> they did not. >> they had a reputation for not being available. >> yes, they did. >> if they were not available as a magistrate you could not get anything done, could you? >> no, sir. >> was it true that it was common for bail bondsman to not by the magistrate to find another judge. was that true? >> yes, it was. >> is that sometimes called "bond shopping"? >> yes, sir. >> when a build want -- with a bail bondsman was bond shopping, would they go to see who is available in the courthouse? >> yes, sir, they would. >> you did that, right? "yes, sir. >> is it true that sometimes you go in the courthouse to see
whose door was open or which judges were still there? >> which judges would be acceptable to let me in. when to testified earlier that a judge porteous is one of the most experienced in dealing with criminal matters? >> yes, he is a leader. >> now, is it correct that sometimes when you went looking for a judge that he went to judges other than judge porteous? >> yes, sir i did. >> let's talk about the split bonds for a second. was a judge porteous the only
one to split bonds? >> there were other judges as well. >> are the illegal? >> know they are not. >> they are pretty common? >> yes, sir, they are. >> a lot of judges thought they were a good idea. >> yes, sir. >> and a lot of them did not object to it. >> they did not. >> part of the value of your testimony is try to do the people in this process. is it true that sometimes a bond is initially set too high because of the original charges? >> yes, sir. there are a number of reasons to set them high. >> if someone comes in on a very serious charge, but the actual charge they are being held for
work while as much lower. is that true? >> yes, sir. sometimes they brought some charges. quite often the bond is set with the original charges that may have been reduced or dropped. correct? >> for example if you have free charges burglary, resisting arrest, and public intimidation, the district attorney may toss out two and you have a one bond of 2500 and the other two bonds so the total may have been 7 $500. >> in a case like that, let's say a guy gets pulled in and he is charged with possession, and a stolen car and the bond is set for that but if they drop the drug possession and just go with a stolen car, you have a bond left that is too high? >> yes, sir. actually, the bond goes away because when they screened it,
they threw the car -- they for the charge out and the bond is exonerated at that point. >> there is a need for the bond to be lower than the original bond said that the judges who reduced the bond when the charges are reduced, correct? >> v.f., they would. -- yes, they would. in most cases the bonds were set and would go to a screening process and then they would toss the ball went out. -- toss the charges out. >> i think i can clarify this with the next question. is it true that some judges abuse would bonds as a way of dealing with artificially high bonds? >> yes, sir. >> is it also true that many judges do split bonds as a way of getting more bonds on people
so that they would not just been released on their own recognizance? >> yes, sir. >> that makes it more likely they will come back, correct? >> yes, sir. >> by the way, you testified earlier that he would sometimes turn you down -- turn you down for bonds, correct? >> he has turned me down for a few. >> he testified earlier that judge porteous's standard operating procedure was to check out the representations that were made in the bonds? >> meaning? >> that he would call and confirm? >> check the rap sheet, yes. >> would he not also call a prosecutor or the jail to confirm the facts of the bond? >> he would have rhonda called the jail and a sea. we were there to call in the
jail and get the rap sheet and we would have that on the worksheet. he would also double check in some cases. >> did he do that on a regular basis to get the confirmation? >> most of the time, but sometimes he did not. >> you said you worked with an individual named adam barnett. do you recall? >> yes, sir. >> prior to 1993, you and your sister developing a relationship described with the judges, that you would use adam barnett to approach judges. correct? >> yes, i would. >> you used adam barnett to approach judge porteous prior to 1993? >> yes, that is correct. >> you stop using him because you do not think a porteous judge trusted mr. barnett? >> yes, sir.
right to testify before the house of representatives, and i am quoting, i met porteous judge another bail agent. at some point, he faded out and we became close porteous the judge after he left." do you recall saying that? >> yes, sir. >> you are referring to item barnett? >> yes, sir. >> i would like to introduce house exhibit 119-z. this is an article we showed you in the deposition. is a "the times picayune" article from 1993 and the headline reads, "$80,000 house is used as a treaty in $300,000 in bonds." do you see that? >> yes, sir. >> do you remember the article? >> yes, sir. not verbatim, i remember the
heading. >> i will not quiz you on it. >> ok. >> that was about the event that led mr. barnett to "fayed out"? >> yes, it is. >> that was an interesting story for people in gretna. >> yes, sir, it was. and that is when you became close to porteous judge? >> yes, sir. >> to get with him far more often in 1994 than he did in 1991? >> yes, sir. >> let's talk about the lunches. was it your experience in the legal community in leaguegretna that it was a pretty close-knit
legal community? >> it was closed for some people. >> for lawyers and judges for example? >> yes, sir. >> was a common for lawyers and judges to go out to lunch with each other and social life? -- socialize? >> they did. >> to testify you went out to lunch with the judge porteous. did you have these in undisclosed or secret locations? >> we did not. >> when you went into these restaurants did you ever ask for a back room so that you could not be seen having lunch with any of these judges? >> i did not. >> so it was common for lawyers and judges to see you with the judge porteous, was it not? >> i wanted them to see me with
him. >> so he would not avoid being seen with you or other people at lunch? >> he did not. >> did you ever tell him you expected certain things for all of those lunches? >> every time i asked him for a bond, i would ask, "judge, if you could see fit in setting this bond" which were my words every time. >> but you never said that you were buying this for a purpose? please remember items bought your lunch. did you ever have a conversation like that? >> no, we did not. >> the house asking about places you took a judge porteous to lunch and suggested that these were incredibly expensive lunches. i will show you a number of
receipts the house has produced regarding these lunches. first, we will look at house exhibit 372-b. if you look at the screen, can you see a receipt there? >> yes, sir. >> to take a look at the amount on that receipt, you see it says $352. >> yes, sir. >> up and the right hand corner, and books that there is a notation for the size of the group. do you see that? >> yes, sir. >> how many people were at that lunch? >> 10. >> thank you. you testified win you thought the lunches started. you were thinking 1994 or 1995.
>> yes, sir. >> let's look at another receipt. this is house is a bit -- house exhibit. 72-d. this is another receipt from the beff -- beef connection. the amount seems to say $268. do you see that? >> yes, sir. >> let's take a look at how many people attended that much. there is a notation for the number of people attending. can you tell me how many people attended that lunch? >> 9. >> madam chair, we would like to move these receipts into evidence. thank you. by the way, i want to have the ticket and get another exhibit,
house exhibit 373-8. -- 373-a. a month to look at what people were charged for. they said this is one exhibit judge porteous attended. do you see any charge therefore -- there for absolut vodka? like the words we have seen? >> no, i do not. >> chairman hatch, we would like to move this in the record as well. >> without objection. >> i want to talk about bonds. in 1993-1994, you previously
estimated that in any given day that you might have anywhere between 1-10 bonds through the courthouse. correct? >> yes, sir. >> he previously testified that toward the end of judge portis stateteous's tenure as a judge that he wanted to "open the floodgate"? >> that is correct. >> this was a long time ago, but you thought that he had moved a lot of bonds that month, correct? >> yes, sir. >> i am going to show you a demonstrative. >> ok. >> this is an exhibit the defense created that summarizes the record.
now, would it surprise you that on the last the day that judge porteous was a state judge, if you look down there and says "october 28, judge porteous sworn to federal bench." do you see that? if you take a look get the day before, his last day as a state judge, it shows he approved one bond. right? >> yes, sir. >> think of the day before that. how many does it say there? >> two? >> on the 26? >> yes, sir. >> it shows one. >> yes. >> no bonds on the 25th, the
24th. how many bonds of the 23rd? >> one bond. on the 23rd? just one. >> right. would surprise you that judge porteous signed in 3 bonds in his last week? >> if that is what you say it is coming you know -- all i know is that i told my staff as he was leaving to open the floodgates and wear him out because we would save the other ones for later. >> that makes sense. when you talk about the floodgates, that is what you were hoping to do. >> maybe it was slow that week, you know? but we wanted to wear him out before he leaves to save the other judges until after he is gone. >> would it surprise you that in
the previous 21 days that judge porteous only signed 27 bonds? >> if that is what your research shows, yes, sir. >> it would not surprise you? >> it would not surprise me. >> let's look at those home repairs. i want to clarify a few things. in the 1980's and the 1990 proxy you employed a group of guys who did construction? >> yes, sir. >> you testified that you sometimes had trouble with these guys to make sure that they were working? >> the construction guys? >> yes. >> yes, i did. >> were also concerned because they would do drugs a what? >> yes. >> is it true that you and your sister were never that confident about whether these guys were
working or just messing around? >> yes, sir. reich also tried to keep a close eye on them for that reason? >> i did. >> did you use these construction crews to assist a friend to work from their house in your previous testimony? >> yes, i did. or an in fully. -- an employee. >> he said he volunteered to have these guys fix something for judge porteous? >> yes, sir. >> was that the only time he was a state judge that you did repairs for him? >> yes, sir. >> testified earlier you did not know how many repairs were needed on his stance. >> i did. -- on hisfence.
>> and the testified he did not know how much it cost. >> yes, i did. >> you did not personally buy supplies for the repairs. >> i did not. >> he testified earlier that you did not personally hand any cash to either of them for the fence? >> they probably send a check from my account department credited it to petty cash. >> that you do not recall either? >> i was not doing anything but selling. >> but you do not recall giving the money for its. >> no, sir. >> to testified you were not sure how to aid for the materials. >> yes, sir. >> i want to be absolutely clear.
when judge porteous became a federal judge to this day, you have never done any repairs on his home? >> i have not. >> i moved to car repairs. you have testified before that you did not have any records or receipts for the car repairs. is that correct? >> if the government has them -- personally, i do not. maybe the government has them. >> you did not do the repairs yourself. you said people that work for you did this? >> yes. they would drop it off somewhere. >> i want to be clear. from the minute that judge porteous became a federal judge to this very day did you have never done any car repairs for him? is that correct? while he was a federal judge? >> not that i can recall.
>> i want to talk about the trip to las vegas. we spoke about it during the deposition. he went to las vegas to speak at a conference. is that true? >> i do not know if it was that conference. one time we went just when i went with jacoby and him. >> so it may have been a convention. i might be using the wrong term. he spoke at a convention in las vegas. that is what you testified to recently. >> i do not know if he spoke at a convention that time. i have been to vegas as a bail bondsman for 25 years. i have brought different people. i know i was there with porteous without a doubt. >> do you remember testifying under oath previously when you
were asked, "did he go to las vegas to speak at a convention"? and you responded with, "yes, he did"? >> yes. >> that was a trip that [unintelligible] attended? >> yes. >> eagar the best man for him at his weddings? >> yes. >> he is married to a judge? >> yes. >> did you do bonds with his wife? >> yes, i did. >> you were friends with them? ? yes. >> are you still friends? >> yes, i am.
>> and you wanted to go because you had a french bid close relationship with them? >> yes. >> so you did not ask him just to "make things look better," but he was there as a friend. >> yes. because i wanted him there to be there because if you where someone out, you need to move that to someone else. >> increase the testified that you did not give any cash to -- you previously testified that you did not get any cash to judge porteous on these trips. >> i did not. >> let's talk about the set asides. they spent a fair amount of time on that.
you had spoke about how judge porteous said he wanted to wait to deal with the wallace matter until after his confirmation. is that correct? >> yes. >> i will show you how as exhibit 246. i am specifically looking at page number 4. i am sorry. what? actually, i will first start on page one then i will go to page 4. i want to look in the date on page #one. >> ok. september 21, 1994. >> can we zeroed in on the date. >> september 21, 1994. >> take a closer look.
september 21? is that what you said? >> yes in 1994. >> can we know what document is on the screen? >> house exhibit two under 46, i believe. -- 246, i believe. >> do you know when judge porteous was confirmed? >> do i know the date? no, i do not. >> he was confirmed in october 1994. would that surprise you? >> yes, sir. >> if he was confirmed in october 1994, does that not mean that he dealt with the wallace matter you just saw in september? >> yes, sir. >> that would be before, correct? >> yes, sir.
let's take a look at page four at the very end. there is a statement the judge made. this is after he set aside the conviction. he then says he thought he could deal with the expungement later. is that correct? >> madame chair, i object. i think the council may be brief -- misrepresenting that. >> what are you suggesting this is? >> madame chair, there was a motion to amend the sentence that took place in september. that conviction did not take place after the confirmation in october. >> we will be getting to that. with that note, i would like to proceed. the government can make that objection, obviously, but i wanted to know that in this
hearing -- to note that in this hearing that you could see this says, "if you want further release then filed a petition to enforce 893 and i will execute that also. do you see that? >> yes, sir. >> do you know what that is? >> a first-time offender if you do not get in trouble after a certain amount of time that immigration will be terminated. >> does also deal with expungements? >> yes, sir. >> in september 1994, the judge is dealing with the set aside and saying that he is willing to deal with the expungement? >> yes, sir.
>> of the -- i would like to deal with a separate matter now. you spoke about this matter. is this correct? >> yes. >> you mentioned that this case, that judge porteous had set aside the conviction buy another judge. is that correct? >> ps. >> i think you said judge richard. >> yes. >> do said judge porteous had grabbed it from judge richards. is that correct? >> yes. >> are you aware judge richard to set aside that conviction before a porteous judge acted. >> no, i am not. >> i would like to assure you house exhibit 77-c.
i would like to highlight the date on this. you can see this is a motion to set aside the conviction and business prosecution. i would like to zoom in on the date. >> that is on the next page. >> i beg to see the whole document. -- i would like to see the document. >> ok. they will blow this up for you in a second. >> my eyes are bad, too. >> so are mine. do you see where it says the june 18, 1993? >> yes, sir.
>> are you aware that this date is 1 1/3 earlier -- one month earlier than the date that judge porteous build with this in his court room? >> yes, sir. >> let me ask you, are you aware that judge richards signed an expungement for him before judge porteous ever did? >> i was not made aware of that. >> we have a new exhibit that we would like to introduce. we will mark this as exhibit 2006. we previously notified the house about this exhibit. >> ok. >> madam chair, can we introduce this as exhibit to thousand six? >> gering no objections, it is admitted to the record. >> i would like to highlight the
date on this document. do you see where the document says july, 1992? >> yes, sir. >> that was two years before judge porteous dealt with this matter. correct? >> yes, sir. >> i should note that this expungement, this is when he received during this time. it has a different number than the one of your previous exhibit. we offered this just to show previous work on this case.
by the way,what judge porteous did was an expungement and not a set aside? >> either both or either or. >> you are not sure which one? >> i am not exactly sure. >> and expendables -- an expungement is fairly routine? >> yes. >> they are, because they tended to give people second chances. >> yes, sir. the's in this case, was offense that was expunged an event that occurred 17 years previously? >> yes, sir. >> was 17 years old at the time? >> yes, sir.
>> judge porteous 61 jet offense he a -- that happened when he was 17 years old that happened 17 years previously. >> yes, sir. >> was your sister friends with rhonda? >> yes, they were friends. >> they would socialize with the to other? >> yes, they would. >> go on trips together? >> yes they would. >> is it true that sometimes they would help you with social events? >> yes, she would. >> including planning trips in las vegas? >> yes. we would use her as an overflow. >> it was a side job? >> i would not call it a job.
she would make arrangements. >> did you testify that she would do this kind of planning as a separate job? did she often do that? >> i did not remember. >> i thought she was associated with the casinos and did stuff like them -- the stuff like that and had another job. >> ok. you testified earlier that bail bondsman unlimited had some bonds in federal court. correct? >> very few. they mainly to a cash deposit. we probably road two or three per year. >> judge porteous never executed a federal bond for you? >> he did not. >> not to this very day? >> he did not. >> you said judge porteous was
openly friendly with you in the courthouses and restaurants. you describe your relationship to him earlier in the position as a "friendship" did you not? >> yes, sir. >> prior to her interviews with the fbi, did they tell you what to say to the fbi? did he say, ok, this is what i want you to say"? >> i knew what i had to say. >> did he ever tell you to be untruthful? >> he did not. >> did he tell you to lie about this subject or that subject? >> i do not know he knew with the questioning would be about. >> did he sit you down? wait a second.
was it not a porteous judge who suggested your name? >> yes. >> did he sit you down and work queue through like the question did dancers? >> he did not. -- questions and answers? >> he did not. >> you did not immediately call him after your fbi interview, did you? >> maybe a few days after and i told him everything they ask. >> did you testify earlier that you summarized what you had discussed? >> yes, sir. >> if you did not go question by question. >> no. >> is it correct that even sitting here today, you do not
recall what exactly you told judge porteous at that lunch? >> i remember the kline matter because there -- i had never written a $100,000 bond in those days. when they asked me about that, it's stuck out. i knew exactly because of that reason. >> ok, you recall that. >> a lawyer said, if a guy came in with a wire, they were asking me questions. >> that one step out in my mind. other than the drinks, it was just generic that i could remember. >> did he ask you, "did you lie to the fbi"? >> he did not.
>> at some point, you told judge porteous that you had given him a "clean bill of health" with the fbi? are those the words you used? "thumbs up"? >> yes. >> he had testified earlier that you did not think that you would be able to coerce the judge. correct? judge porteous? >> in what way? >> when we ask you if you could coerce the judge because of your fbi interview, did you say no? >> no. >> you were asked about his knowledge of his financial affairs. you said, "well, i knew what his cars look like," but you did not
know about his bank accounts or anything like that did you? >> no. he had crummy cars and helped fix them himself. so i kind of -- >> i want to clarify one thing. you were shown a your plea agreement. remember when you talk about him in your plea agreement? >> yes, sir. >> did you complete guilty to a "corrupt relationship with judge porteous"? >> yes, sir. >> was he ever tried for any crimes do you know of? >> no. >> was he ever tried of any crimes that you know of? >> no. >> you pleaded in that. you did not even have a trial, did you? >> i did not. >> did you ever give cash to
other judges? >> yes, sir, i did. >> which ones? >> do i have to give the names? can i say maybe three dozen between judges, state reps, and stuff like that? the way need to give names? -- do i need to give names? >> madame chair, instead of going through the names of the judges, which we have no need to do, we would like to introduce his previous deposition the house indicated that they wanted to introduce a position no. 4 harbor 47. we would like to -- position447. >> we have no objection.
>> that will be entered in its entirety. >> thank you. >> isn't it true that you testified earlier that you thought some judges took campaign contributions and used it for personal purposes? >> yes, sir. thoughtdn't you say you the percentage of judges that did that might be 60% or 70%? >> several judges. >> do you recall saying you thought might be 60% or 70%? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. >> it did you ever give judge porteous campaign contribution? >> i did not. >> is a deep true that you did home repairs for other judges. >> yes. >> is it true you gave at schrempp to other judges?
>> yes. >> is it true that you went to new york and got fake rolex watches. >> yes. i paid $10 for them. >> you came to the court house and gave them to judges, didn't you? >> yes. >> he went from chamber to chamber and handed them to judges. >> yes. >> most of them tickets, correct? >> half of them took it, half of them returned it. >> is it true that you gave the judge's hands, turkeys, cakes, gingerbread houses. >> yes. >> it was pretty standard for judges to get gifts from lawyers and other people, wasn't it? >> yes. >> after judge porteous was on
the federal bench, to deleverage the information about your relationship to force them to do anything? >> no, sir, i did not. i leaned on him, but that is somewhat forced. having a flurry of pages here. i want to ask you about, mr. goodlatte showed you this grainy videotape. do you remember this? >> yes.
>> this was exhibit 375. it captured all of these pictures of people leaving emerill's, right? >> yes. >> did you go into a back room to have lunch with these judges? >> no, sir, i did not. >> did you try to hide the lunch in any way from people seeing you? >> no, sir, i did not. >> isn't it true that he testified that judge porteous did not actually eat lunch. he came at the very end. >> yes, sir, he did. >> madam share, we want to be clear we have moved exhibits into evidence -- 2007, 2006,
300th of a threea, 372bd,, 200 -- to under 46. we have also moved in the bond forms we have marked porteous exit 2002, 2003, and 2004. we can stop are questioning at this time. >> of want to clarify something. did you offer into evidence the calendar you had prepared? did you offer the underlying bond documents and the support was on the calendar? >> that was just a demonstrative. we will be introducing the bonds reference there in later testimony. >> have all of the bond documents that would support that demonstrative exhibit, have they all been marked? >> yes. >> of the entire history of the
judge's bond documents have been marked? >> yes. >> you will be offering them into evidence at a later point? >> we most certainly will. >> could we have a few minutes? we have some demonstrable exhibits we need to prepare that will take five or 10 minutes to queue up and that way we do not have to interrupt the questioning of the what this? >> yes. let's give five minutes. >> we now move to the fourth day of testimony in the impeachment trial of new orleans federal judge porteous thomas. among the witnesses that they with donald gardner, an attorney and friend of the judge to discusses his participation in a case that judge porteous presided over.
this is about one hour and 20 minutes. >> would you raise your right hand. do you swear the evidence you shall give in the case pending between the united states and judge g. porteous thomas b. the trees, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god. >> i do. >> i would like to preface my remarks by saying i took a fall. as everybody can see, my back is injured and i did not mean any disrespect. when i left this morning, i just wanted to go home. i've never been hurt in my life. i'm on pain pills -- i never had paid for 62 years. but don't fall off a ladder. i have a lump on my head the size of an egg, here is ringing and i would ask anyone who is asking me questions to speak loudly. i don't want to not be clear. thank you.
>> you are starting to feel the way we do. [laughter] >> actually, he is in better shape than most of us. >> we apologize for the confusion and year running back and forth a couple of times. we appreciate your cooperation. >> by meant no disrespect by leaving this morning. >> none taken. >> mr. gardner. i'm one of the attorneys for judge porteous. good afternoon and thank you for coming. tell us a little bit about your background, where your educated, and what your profession is now. >> i graduated from you know in 1969, u.s. all law school in 1972. i practice law almost 38 years and started in criminal law in some civil. i moved away from criminal about 20 years ago and refer my
criminal out now. i do a lot of persons lot in the state of louisiana, including everything dealing with people, adoption, divorce, custody, anything -- wells, successions, those types of things. 80% of my practice is that. i do some personal injury. it is very good. i have a smidgen of small corporate clients and just any thing i feel comfortable with, i take it. most of the time, i limit myself to persons. >> where do you practice? >> i practice in hanahan, louisiana. >> where is that? >> 7 miles outside of new orleans in jefferson paris, in a hut of the river. >> is your practice in state court or federal court? >> state court. >> do you no judge porteous? >> i do. >> how do you know him? >> he was in law school and graduated one year ahead of me. he came to jefferson parish working for the attorney
general. they sent him there to handle a case. daylight time, he stayed. we have been friends ever since. >> how would you characterize your friendship? >> good friends. >> did you do things together on a regular basis? >> heat at book -- he was at my wedding. he is the godfather of my oldest daughter. i shared for years, up until 2000, i had thanksgiving dinner at his house and would interface with his family. i grew up with all of his kids and my kids. we had a social relationship outside of law. >> you have birthdays about the same time, correct? >> my birthday is on december 12th, his is on the 15th. we usually go out and celebrate at that time to remind each other we are one year older. >> thank you. let me draw your attention to a
particular case. were you involved in this case? >> i was. >> how did you become involved in that case? >> i never met joe -- he's an excellent lawyer. i looked back through my calendar. january of 1997, i think, they asked me to become involved and i said no. the tell me what the case was about, the division of the federal court, told my is not a federal court and did not think i could help them in any way. i got another call and they would like to talk to me. please talk to them. not interested, i said. >> i'm going to interrupt to make clear some of the transition. who called you? >> tom wilkinson called me initially. he's a friend of mine and we have had cases together. >> who is tom wilkinson? >> an attorney in jefferson parish. >> is he the parish attorney? >> he was.
>> was he in that position at the time he called you? >> 97, i don't know. i would have to guess probably but i do not know. >> what is the role of the parish attorney? >> handled the legal matters of the parish, review of legal contracts. anything the parish needs by way of a lawyer, he has a staff of lawyers under him. >> does he have a brother who is a federal magistrate? >> he does. >> do you know -- what is his name? >> you are stumping me. >> it is welcomed some? >> i think it is jay wilkinson. >> do you know if he had any involvement in the [unintelligible] case question mark >> not to my knowledge. >> you got a call from tom wilkinson asking you to get involved? what was your response? >> no, not interested.
>> why were you not interested quest for >> it was beyond my expertise. i'm not a federal lawyer. i did not want to do it. >> did you get approached again? >> i did. >> what was the nature of that call? >> a follow-up call. they just wanted to speak to me. i said i don't want to do that. all the milly, they convinced me to talk to joe and he said he won the in the case. -- eventually, they convinced me to talk to joe. they wanted a pretty face and i've got a pretty face. >> what did they mean by a pretty face? >> someone who knew the judge. he was concerned that the year before, october of '96, emotion never queues have been filed and his client lost it. big money in this case. they were not going to let anything deter them from an effective presentation and they thought that would entail
having at the bench a friendly face. thatl them i don't think works. i said i don't know if that was the second or first meeting, but i said the judge is going to listen to the evidence, rule on the facts, my presence there will not affect the outcome in any way, shape or form. >> they said we don't know the skinny on judge porteous. he is a fresh judge. this was 97. he says we would like to know how he thinks about stuff. >> i said he read the federal several procedure and memorize the because he has a fine memory. he will be chewed over the head with the procedure book. you better be prepared with all of these certificates and memos and filings. i said the judge is going to let you get everything in it. at every stage of the proceedings. judge porteous gave him a fair
trial. he gave everybody a fair trial. people liked the fact that he would let you try your case and not cut you off. he let everything in. >> i'm going to cut you off again. did the time come when you agreed to represent the client? >> they deal through tom because they know i said no. they faxed a proposal to tom wilkinson and he called me and said these people want to offer you a serious chunk of money. i said i'm not interested. he said he would be a fool. he called me a name, not a nice name. he said just go talk to them. we will get together and talk. they just want you to sit there and help them out. they want you to read judge porteous, decide if he is angry or upset or interface in the case. >> did you finally agree? >> i agree on one condition. i told them i would not be
poured out. by that, i mean i would participate in the case. -- i would not whored out. judge porteous says you guys need to talk. you're wasting a lot of time and he says down to talk and we spent the whole day talking because he did not talk numbers to ask. he was not giving anybody a feeling of where the case is going. he thought they should all get together and we did that. i told him i did want to participate. was not going to sit there as a pretty face and he allowed me to do that. i prepared to witnesses and they decided to let someone else take him. i filled up 11 tablets of notes. i told them what i thought every day after court. two or three of us go back and he would go over the next day's thing. i'm not a federal lawyer, but i can tell you he goes down the list and says duplicitous.
thatys i'm not hearing witness. struck. tell me what they're going to say that is different from the other three people and i will allow him in, but i'm not going to hear him for the sake of letting you guys black bird. i've heard enough. we the next day's preparation -- ivory heard enough of you guys blubber. i've already heard enough of. go back to the next day's preparation and we'd deal with documents. this was a case, a document nightmare. 12, 14 volumes, three inches thick. and the guy who was operating the little screen trying to get it electronically, he was a doh-doh, it never worked. >> fortunately we don't have those here but we do have the screen and the document. >> and we do have repetition of a lot of information. >> madam chairwoman, i think i knew that was coming. >> yeah. >> did you enter into a written agreement? >> i did. what were the terms of that agreement? >> mr. moll was prepared to pay
$100,000 for my participation, flat fee. for my participation in the case. and i understood that. there were additional provisions, and one that stands out that i know everybody's going to be ierested in is that they also included a $100,000 if judge porteous would recuse himself. ean now remember they had filed a motion for judge porteous to recuse himself in october of '96, he'd said no but for some reason that provisions was in there. and other provisions about stage paymen and senate payments as he said to keep me interest. if i represent a client i'm going to represent them. i don't sell people.practiced 38 years, moll got to know that. i think that he felt secure that i was on the team and i want mide team to win. i always want my team to win. i graduated from lsu. >> did -- did you form an opinion as to why you had been offered a provision in your contract for an extra $100,000, if the judge recused himself? >> at the time or now? >> well, let's say at the time
and then -- >> at thtime i didn't. >> what about now. >> now i have a real strong opinion. i think that provision, incentive provision or what, was to get me to either encourag someone to get off of the case for an extra $100,000. i think that they ready thought i was a prostitute because it was a lot of money, they just didn't know how high the number was going to go. but i didn't -- i never did that. i never approached judge porteous and ask him to remove himself. i knew, as i told judge jones at the fifth circuit and and she became enraged at me. i said i didn't know of any additional facts that would allow a recusal motion to be successful or to be heard. and she just went crazy. don't you have an ethical and moral obligation, mr. gardner, for your client? and i said, i do. but she doesn't even know the standard. you better have some fact to recuse a federal judge. you don't walk, oh, i think that maybe they had lunch together. i think they used the same handkerchief.
i knew of thon of those. i knew montel and creely were friends. i knew they went fishing. you didn't know what you people have tried to bring it along the way if it's true or >> also let me step back for a minute. you bring upany subjects, as you speak. you said that you've formed the opinion now that -- restate. what did you -- what did you think your client then wanted you to do with regard to judge porteous and judge porteous' participation in the case? >> let's make this crystal clear. when i signed on besides telling mr. moll theywould participate, i wasn't going to split and look around. i also told him that i w never going to ask judge porteous to do anything immoral or illegal and i said that a number of times. and by that i meant i was never going to put the judge, even though we're friends, i've never in all of our years, in a positi that would cause him uncomfortableness. i wasn't going to go to him and say, hey, listen, i get
$100,000. get off the case! i wouldn't do at. and i didn't. >> have you formed an opinion as to whether that's what they wanted you to do? >> read the contract. listen to my testimony somebody's got to decide that. as a fact finder, i'm just going to tell you, it was there. i think it was a big incentivep but i think that somebody thought i was a trout and i would bite. and have to tell you, i'd been around a long time. this is the first timen my lifetime my ethics and professionalism has ever been questioned because i don't do that. >> you've known tom porteous for a long time. >> a long time. >> what is your opinion about how he would react if you were to tell him abt a clause like that? >> tom wasn't that kind of judge. he would have reacted poorly. first of all, let's talk friendship, first of all. he would had been a friend if a
friend of his would have asked him that, number e. number two, think as a judge, he would have really become enraged at me, and knowing tommy, he may have done something even though i'm his friend he may have done something more. he may have taken another step along the way. i would expect that if someone tries to subvert the system that way. >> do you think that agreement, as you look at it now, was improper? >> that's for you to decide, mr. schwartz. it's aggressive. >> did you -- you received $100,000 to start as a retainer. >> i did march 13th, 1997. >> did you pay any of that out to anyone else? >> mr. wilkerson, as i told you previously, and i had a relationship on cases he'd send me a person's divorces, sucssions things like that. we had a working relationship. and i get some motivation was
there for him to get me involved because he ultimately took a nice part of that fee. >> how mh was a nice part of that fee. >> i think that it was $30,000 that he asked for. >> and you gave him that? >> his participation in it was interfacing between the moe group and me. >> was there -- during the trial of the case and you were there every day, correct? >> every day, every night, every morning. we met around the clock. it was a serious case. we hadsuppers together, we met with gary ruff, the lead counsel came in from out of up to, and every night, every day. >> did an event occur that you recallin this which some books fell on the floor or came to -- go on the floor? >> i'm going to repeat myself. this was a document nightmare. the volumes had been stacked before judge porteous' day up
there, and they were all like domino's. at some point in a side bar, moved it, and they just went boop, boop, boop, and unfortunately, joe moe may have been standing in that direction, and judge porteous didn't throw -- i guarantee you, he didn't throw anything. they just fell over. they were top-heavy to begin with. >> that was an accident, in your view? >> an incident. not really -- an accident, yes. >> okay. >> a misfortune. >> but judge porteous didn't throw them like soccer balls at mr. moe. >> he did not. >> re there any discussions in that case that you know about involving a possible settlement? between the parties? >> oh, the parties went round and round. every couple days after we had a series of witnesses and somebody thought they had made a point, we go for this million and they would go for that million. and they were constant hallway
discussions. there was discussions when t case settled. we still had discussions, lead counsel wanted to get us all together again. they had a new proposal. and none of it ever went anywhere. everybody was so dug into their position or what they thought where they wanted to be, it's hard to sele cases. >> did your client ever ke a monetary settlement proposal to lilterburg. >> many settlement proposals. >> can you tell us about the size of those proposals? >> i have to tell you, i can't. they ranged from a low 12, 18, $15 million and i thi shy of $30 million at some point in time. i don't think they ever went over $30 million. >> so there was a settlement proposal of $30 million from landmark? >> a discussion. you know, this is in the hallway, after a certain witness and somebody thought they had done well, you know. >> okay. let me talk a little bit about
e culture, the legal culture in gretna. >> we've only got four hours left. >> i understand. i'll try to make my questions pointed and ask you for pointed responses. the legal community in gretna, was that a fairly small group of people, not a lot of lawyers? >> it's larger today than it was, but at one time it was small, and everybody knew everybody. and, yeah, it -- a tight night group. >> the lawyers knew everybody? >> everybody knew everybody. >> okay. was it customary for lawyers and judges to have lunches together, to have meals together? >> very much so. in fact, one of the local cafeterias over there had a table set out for lawyers and judges, a long table, and you walked in, and everybody sat do, take your order, tear off the little sheet, and everybody would pay and eat and come and go. people would come and go, and differenparties at different times and you would say hello,
and judges went back to cases, lawyers either went back to ourt or back to their office. >> what was the nme of th cafe? >> wide sides palace cafe, courthouse cafe. it's changed names over the years. >> did you have -- did you have other somewhat more expensive lunches with judge porteous from time to time? >> yeah. i was -- judge porteous' jiminy cricket. i would limit him to two drinks, put his cigarette out if he went to the bathroom. i get irritating at times, my wife tells me, but that's what i do. we did have nice lunches. we didn't do that every day. let me give you a period so i can go fast. from the time judge porteous and i were lawyers to the state bench, a couple times a week we would meet with a group every other friday and go out and have a nice lunch. maybe treat each other.
when we got to be a state lunch, we would go to white sides and every once in a while, a nicer hamburger joint or italian or restaurant or something like that. nothing fancy. various times we would go out to better restaurts, but that was for a celebratory thing. not every day. >> did -- who paid for those lunches? >> porteous paid his fair share. always as a lawyer, when he got to be a judge, he paid for his fair share when he have at white des. he has paid for lunches. every year, tom went to cles, he would buy eight, ten lawyers lunch or supper, just all the lawyers together. and the tip and everything. which everybody looked forward to that. >> that was at a cle? >> yes. >> an annual cle? >> yes. >> did you evergive any gifts to the porteous -- to tom porteous? >> yes, sir. >> what gifts did you give? >> sweaters, pens, shirts.
i gave him some -- i thought he drank gin in his early days. i remember giving him a bottle of that. but my wife would buy the gifts at that point in time, and there was always gifts at christmas thyme, always gifts at birthdays, always gifts for the kids. and mel, bless her soul, she is gone, she was always generous to my daughters. they always gave something appropriate and nice at christmastime. >> so you would reciprocate gifts. >> absolutely. our families did that on a regular basis. prior to 2000. >> okay. after he became a federal judge, did you continue to do things socially together? >> y know, ter 2000, that changed a little bit. my we had some problems, and she was dealing with those, and we didn't getting to many places and do a lot of stuff. but, yeah, we still did things
together. >> what about in -- when he became federal judge, which i believe was in 1994 -- >> 1997. >> '4, '5. >> '4? >> yes. >> i'm sorry, '4. >> did you continue to see him as often when he was on the federal bench? >> when he got to the federal bench, i was proud of him, i was happy for him, tried to get down there once a week, you know, just to see him. because he was not there anymore. i would get to -- porteous had a very interesting courtroom. you could go there, use the phone. in those days, no cell phones. in the early days, you could go to his courtroom, use the phone, use the toilet, get a glass of water, and it was an open courtroom. everybody saw him and it was fun to have a legal community like that. when he got down there, it was cloistered, the locks on walls and everything that we have these days. i took my shoes off so many times today, i'm going to have a half sole when i get home. all this security stuff. then it went from every other week to once a month.
and i left a message once describing myself, and why don't yogive me a call, and he would say next tuesday, and next tuesday he would be busy. we weren't as close or frequent, but we tried to get together as often as we could. >> thank you, mr. gardener. >> thank you, mr. schwartz. >> mr. gardener, i think you said in your testimony that judge porteous is one of your closest friends in the world? >> i didn't say inhe world. but he's a close friend. >> but you would describe h as one of your closest friends in the world, wouldn't you? >> he's a close friend.
>> could we call up page 5 o exhibit 32? this is your testimony before the fifth circuit. >> in the world, okay. >> but i have to tell you, i'm tom porteous -- >> yes, sir. i agree with that statement. i made that. i read it. >> is that a fairly accurate statement? i mean, you were that close, you've been in each other's weddings, godfathers. do you have many closer friends than judge porteous, at least at this time? >> yes, sir.. >> so he is -- >> he's one -- was one of my closest friends. since mel died, it's been a different thing. >> and would you say, you know, up until his time on the federal bench, maybe during the early part of the years on the federal bench, there's probably no one outside of his family that knew him better than you did? >> i knew him well.
i don't know if anybody knew him better than i. but i knew him well. >> and when the fbi came to interview you, because of your close friendship with judge porteous, you were somewhat less than candid with the fbi, weren't you? >> i don't think i was. i think -- i want to go on record. the fbi agent who interviewed me came in, asked me what i did for a living and i told him i did family law. he spent the whole hour talking aboua problem that he had related to family law. and in the last three seconds -- can i finish? in theast three seconds, he said -- by the way, is judge porteous a good guy and i said, yeah, he's a good guy. he asked me if he had any ab rent sexual behaviors, i remember that as one of the questions, and i understand, not to my knowledge. >> you can certainly finish your answers, but it will go a lot quicker if you address your answer to my question. >> okay. >> were you somewhat less than candid in your interview with the anybody? >> no, sir. i think i answered the fbi to the best of my knowledge.
if you would like to pot out some of my uncandidness, i would be happy to reply. >> well, i certainly will. if we could pull up porteous 347, this is your fbi 302. do you recall being asked whether judge porteous ever was known to abuse alcohol? >> no. >> could you highlight that statement before me? let me see if i can pull up a copy of my own to read that. >> madam chair, i wanted to object. if the congressman is using this document t impeach, he hasn't posed a question as being a content of the document. he simply went to the document and is pulling outlines. >> i believe he asked him if he recalled, saying if he had
abused alcohol. so he may be using it to refresh his recollection, i don't know. >> maybe the congress man could be clear. but usually if he's going to be impeached or refreshed, he is given a question first, such as did he use alcohol and if the answer is in conflict with the 302, then it can be used for that purpose. >> may i proceed? i think the question was whether he was going to be candid with the fbi interrogator. so go ahead, congressman schiff. >> thank you. mr. gardener, do you recall telling the fbi that you had ner known of the candidate to abuse alcohol? >> i wasn't asked that question, sir. >> so if we look at the record of your interview where it provides gardener has never known the candidate to use illegal drugs or to abuse alcohol or prescription drugs, your testimony would be that that's a false statement? >> my testimony is that's a synopsis of someone who didn't do his job and filled in the blanks. he never asked me that question,
sir. i told you, he spent the entire hour talking about his personal problem with me, because he was very concerned about it, and spent three minutes at the e and says, is porteous an okay guy? and i said, as far as i know. and he said, is he competent? and i said a very competent lawyer. he would make an excellent federal judge. but he never asked me about drugs or alcohol, sir. i do not remember that question specifically. >> so your testimony, mr. gardener is the only things he asked you other than his personal family situation, that part of the interview lasted about three minutes. >> three minutes. and he ended up -- did judge porteous have any obje ab or re sexual behavior, which i thought was strange, but he did ask me that. >> so all ofhe information in this 302, according to your testimony, was gathered in the last three minutes of the interview? >> sir, what i'm telling you, that that interviewer did not do his job. he came in, he was fascinated with the fact that i had some
knowledge about an area of the law, and he asked me personal questions for almost the entire hour. we went on and on. i'm thinking to myself, when is this guy getting to the interview? he's here to interview. and he never gets to the interview. at the end, how is judge porteous, is he an okay guy, i said, he's an okay guy, very good guy. >> and mr. gardener, do you recall the fbi agent asking you if you knew of any financial problems that the candidate might have. >> in i knew of no financial problems that judge porteous may have had in 1994, no, sir. >> and that's what you told the fbi agent. >> if i was asked that question, that's what i would have probably told him, that as far as i knew, tommy seemed to have his finances in control. even though we were close, he never shared with me any financial problems, and i wasn't aware of any financial problems. >> could we call up page 62 of
the grand jury testimony, exhibit 33? i would like to read a portion of this to you. let's see if you recall testifying to this in the grand jury. >> objection, madam chair. this is a grand jury transcript. once again, we have no question. i'm not too sure why this is being introduced,but there was a previous ruling on the use of grand jury transcripts. >> madam chair, i've just -- >> i believe that he should have an opportunity to ask the question. 's your objection that he can't use the grand jury testimony to impeach? >> well, he'sust broughtp part of the grd jury, he hasn't asked a question yet. >> i think that we need to wait for him to ask a question, and see if whether or not it's appropriate or not. if he's -- he can impeach him with his grand jury testimony. you don't quarterly with
quarrel with that, do you? >> there is no question asked. >> why don't we give him a chance to ask it. >> okay, your honor. >> mr. gardener, do you remember being asked in the grand jury question, did tom porteous have a good idea what his financial situation was, answer, oh, i don't know that. i don't know that. i think he was always short. i think that's why, you know, he would ask me from time to time for money, for stuff, you know, to buy gifts, to do this, or whatever. do you recall testifying that in the grand jury? >> yes, sir. don't take it out of context when i say short. there's no paper in his wallet. that's short. i don't mean short from a financial standpoint. i think you're reading something into that. and what i said, and if you look at it, i said i believe that tom's wife, who hung around with doctors' wives, liked to keep up with the joneses. she told my then wife, you should have a furniture bill and make sure your furniture is up -- i bought a duncan five set for $500, and i was pleased with
it. >> mr. gardener, you were asked in the grand jury not whether jud porteous whether he carried money in his wallet or whether he forgot his wallet. you were asked about his financial situation, and your answer was he was always short. did you tell that to the fbi? >> fbi? >> did the fbi? >> i told the fbi guy who interviewed me that he was always short? >> when the fbi was doing the background check on judge porteous a they asked you about his financial situation, why didn't you tell them what you told the grand jury, that you thought he was always short? >> i just explained that. i'll do it again for you, so that we can make it clear. when i said short, i meant that he didn't carry money around in his pocket. on the occasions that he asked me. donny, you got two 20s for a 40 or whatever? that's what i meant. and if you gon to say -- go to the last line there before you take it off the screen, and les read it all, if it ear
going to read it, let's make it clr and get the full context. because i'm good at taking stuff out of context, because you can do wonders with it. i don't want you to take my testimony out of context. can we put the page back on where it says i don't know about his finances? that was at the bottom, wasn't it? >> mr. gardener, i would be happy to show you the quote again. would you like to see it again? >> let's see the page again. >> let's pull it up on the screen. >> no, wrong page. yeah, right page. did you tell porteous, have a good idea of his financial situation was. oh, i don't know that. line 23. i don't know that. line4. i think he was always short. when i said short, i explained to you what i said about short. i meant between him and i. i didn't mean height or that he had financial problems. please don't read the worth short, financial problems. >> mr. gardener, i wouldn't want
to put words in your mouth. >> please don't. you won't. >> i understand when you testified before the grand jury that he was always short, you didn't mean thathe had financial problems. that's your testimony today, correct? >> in retrospect, i learned of tom's bankruptcy and somebody in the courthouse told me about it and he sheepishly told me that. that was the first time that i became aware of any financial problems that tom porteous had. they lived well, the kids were well dressed, they went to good schools, they always had lavish parties at their house, they had good food. everything was perfect at tom porteous' house. >> mr. gardener, from time to time, you also would give judge porteous money to gamble, isn't that right? >> from time to time, throughout our relationship before he was ever a judge, he would ask me for a few dollars. and you got thetranscript. we were out shopping for gifts at christmas season. he had had run out of cistmas money, i guess, and is i had some on me, he asked me for some money to buy glasses for his wife.
when he became a judge -- >> mr. gardener, i'm not asking about christmas presents right now, i'm asking about gambling. this is a yes or no question. did you or did you not from time to time give judge porteous money to gamble? >> no, i gave judge porteous money. i told you already, if you re it, i don't know what he did with it. i presume that he gambled with it, because he took it, sometimes i would see -- he would come by, everybody would have supper and he would come by and say, you got $100 on you? i would give him $100. tom is a bummer. if he's out of cigarettes, he's going to bum a cigarette. if he needed money, he would bum money. as a friend i gave it to him. and as you say, as a good friend, i gave it to him. and i would have given it to him willingly. i gave it to him with no expectation that he would ever do anything for me as a judge or that he would do anything dishonest or that i was buying him. it didn't come in a bag, a box or an envelope. it came out of my wallet in front of everybody. if he asked me for it. and that's the sum of it. a friend giving money to another
friend. and the jiminy cricket told him not to gamble. i don't gamble. i think it's a con game. but there are a lot of people who don't think that. >> mr. gardener, this would go a lot quicker if you'll confine your answers to my questions. let's call up page 31 of the grand jury transcript. you've just testified that you di't give the judge money knowingly to gamble. in your grand jury testimony, you're asked question, did you ever provide porteous th money to gamble. answer, i did. question, can you tell us when that happened? answer, i wouldn't say often, but when i was with tom, he would come up to me, and he was -- i don't know the proper word to say, we're such good friends, "donny, you got $200, can i borrow $200 for you --" >> i'm a little short. same short i referred to before. >> mr. gardener, you can't interrupt the question, okay? >> i'm sorry, i apologize. >> thank you. >> i'm a little short.
i would give him the $200. can i borrow $100 for you, you know, and i would give it to him. so you did give m money to gamble, didn't you, mr. gardener. >> i gave him money when we were at gambling institutions. would you go back up to line 1 through 5 also? >> if you gave him money at gambling institutions then why did you say he never gambled with money you gave him? >> i didn't know -- i gave it to him -- i would presume then if you want to be perfectly honest, i don't want to beatround the bush. i guess he was going to gamble with it or go buy a drink with it or meal, or do somethg in the casino with that money. and gambling is one of the abcs. a is gambling. >> did judge porteous from time to time sent you curators, didn't he? >> he did. >> and in particular, there was
a time in your practice when you had left your firm and you had started your own practice where you needed the help paying the rent, paying your secretary, and your very close friend, judge porteous, started sending you curators to help you pay your bills, isn't that right? >> that's correct. >> now, i think you testified as well in the grd jury, but let me ask you. you also gave him money for his son's ex turnship, is that right? >> timmy -- sorry. timmy porteous, ex turn for the senate i believe, or house in 1994. everybody was proud of him. i think they had a party, and i questioned the then wife, and she said that she put a check, she believes in an envelope, you know, congratulations -- because everybody was very proud of him.
there were not a lot of kids in the circle of friends that we all had and had nice friends th had that opportunity. and they were taking up gifts for him to defray his expenses. you guys don't pay for your ex turns, i understand. >> and did bob creely tell you he was also sort of hit on by the judge? >> i think about the same time, a number of friends had been asked to participate in the party, or to give a gift to michael -- excuse me, timmy -- he's got a michael s, too. timmy for hisexturnship. >> didn't bob creely call and tell you, quote, that rotten bastard is hitting me up for money for his son's ex turnship? >> you called bob creely, you watched his demeanor. he did say that. it's bob. he didn't mean anything by that. that's the way bob reacts to everything. >> you don't think he felt put upon? >> in light of all this testimony, i guess he felt put upon.
but i didn't feel put upon, giving timmy a few dollars -- a minor few dollars. but creely did say that, yes, sir. that is a factual statement. >> and i want to ask you about the liljiberg case. you testified when you were brought on you didn't know anything about the federal court, that's what you said, right? >> yes, sir. >> and after the circumstances in which you were brought on and why mr. moe wanted a handsome face at the table -- >> thank you. >> you testified that in retrospect, and in looking at this, you think it was unethical. >> i didn't say it was unethical. i think i was asked that. i think the ethical representation of a climate client is what i did in this thing. i gave my all for that client. i gave every hour, i read every document, i participated. i didhat they asked me. mr. moe, if you remember his testimony, in all of the places he has testified, he said don gardener did a good job, did
exactly what we asked of him. he gave us input, not only with the judge, but i ultimately learned the case and wa talking them about witnesses and about strategies and other things, because i started to enjoy that case. it was an interesting case. >> well, i thought i understood in the latter part of your testimony on direct that you were suggesting you thought there was something unethical in the way you were brought on to the liljiberg case. that the amount of money they threw at you -- >> they threw a lot of money, yes, sir. >> is it your testimony you think there was something unethical about bringing you on to be, basically, their friend of the judge? >> they wanted to have a face at the table, and i guess because i had refused, and i was not refusing to increase the price of the fee. or -- >> my questionmr. gardener, is, were you suggesting earlier that you think this is unethical that they brought you on to this case? >> no. i don't think -- don't think it's unethical that i joined a case.
okay? whether you read into it or my presence there and my fendship with judge porteous, but remember now, my presence on that, i told everybody so there would be no unethical, even assumption or thinking i was going to do anything, to say, listen, guys, i'm n going to do anything other than participate as a lawyer in this case. i'm not going to go behind closed doors and ask the judge any favors. i'm not going to do anything other than represent my client to the best of my ability. and that's what i did. now, whether you want to read into that contract -- because it's a convoluted contract. i think it's an enticing contract. but for someone who has no scruples, it's unethical. i think i have scruples, so therefore, it didn't become unethical. had i gone behind the door and did the $100,000 recusal, ethic unethical. had i tried to manipulate the numbers with judge porteous, my -- one of my best friends in the world, tom, look, just give me another -- this, i get $200,000,
i get to take it home. i wouldn't do that. that is unethical. that's what i'm telling you. >> so mr. gardener, i to make sure i understand the ethical standard you're applying. you're suggesting then that it would be unethical of you to join the case, beuccessful in getting the judge recused from the case, and take the money, but to take the money, even though he didn't recuse himself, that's okay. to take the contract with $100,000 -- recused is okay, as long as you don't fall through on what contract hopes will take place. is that your testimony? >> it's unethical for me to accept $100,000 and try and get judge off the case. the judge had already heard a recusal motion. you heard me before. i knew of no reason to refile or to initiate another recusal. and had i done that, in any way, shape or form in trying to go
after that $100,000 incentive in that contract, that would have been unethical on my part. >> did you think you had an ethical obligation to disclose to your client the kind of relationship you knew bob creely and jake amato had with the judge? >> jud jones asked me that question, you've got the transcript, i said no, and i'll say no now, because i knew of no unethical relationship they had. i knew they were friends like us. i knew they went out to eat. i've gone out to eat. the four of us have gone out to eat at lunch. we're around the courthouse, we would all go out to eat. i know nothing. i kew of no facts that made the relationship between those two lawyers and judge porteous unethical, immoral, or in any way that i can go tell my client. my client was afraid, because they thought that they were friends. that's the only reason -- >> mr. gardener, i think you testified that you understand the ethical standards better than judge jones, right?
wasn't that your testimony? >> i can't say that, sir. >> wasn't that your testimony, that you understand the ethical standards, judge jones doesn't really understand them, right? >> i can't say that. >> let's take a look. you -- invited us. let's take a look at the fifth circuit testimony. that's page 472. and let's start with -- at the bottom of the page, chief judge jones. no, sir, i'm asking you a question. if you had known of the facts that would -- of a relationship between judge porteous and counsel for the other side that would have required him to make a disclosure for purposes of resal motion, would you not have had an ethical obligation to tell your client? the witness.
my client already knew that judge porteous --hief judge jones -- would you not have had an ethical obligation? answer yes or no, sir. the witness, no ma'am. and then let's -- >> she says on page -- on line 5 -- >> mr. gardener -- >> you're taking this out of context. >> mr. gardener, i'm not finished with my question. i would also like to read the continuation of this discussion with judge benevitiz on page 475. beginning with judge benevitiz -- excuse me, beginning with the witness. we were giving it to timmy porteous, because we knew the young man as long as i did, your honor, this had nothing to do with influencing judge porteous in the case or anything like that. it was a social thing. judge benevitz. i cannot understand that, a profession held to the standards we're supposed to be held to, i'm not talking about as a judge, i'm talking about as
a lawyer, that if i had a client and i had information like that, that i wouldn't feel it was my duty to tell my client or to tell the lead counsel in the case who had previsly filed motion to recuse and had not had that particular information in his motion, which would have triggered at least, even if he forgot it, a responsibility to advise all counsel that he had received money from these lawyers in the past, including you, which was never done. and you're acting like it's no big deal, like this is some kind of culture. yapds it. i can't understand why you're not shocked or ashamed. do you think judge benevitiz and judge jones don't understand the ethical standards? >> they were witch hunting, in my opinion. and in which they initiate that whole line of questioning. do you not think you had a duty to inquire. inquire of what? do i take a deposition of these people? do i subpoena their bank records to see if there is a check written to judge porteous? she said what duty. i'm telling you what i knew. i knew theyere friends. i told judge jones i knew they were friends.
the motion had already been heard that they were friends. please, i knew of no other incident, other than what you people have tried to bring out that would have allowed me to inquire or tell my client. my client came in telling me, we are afraid porteous -- amat creely and porteous are friends. is that true? and they had already made that inquiry, counsel. >> if i could, so you're brought into the case after the recusal motion. when mr. moe made the motion, doesn't know of the money going from mr. amato and mr. creely to the judge. doesn't know about any of this stuff that you know about, just -- >> i don't know of any money going from mr. amato and mr. creely to the judge, sir. >> let me finish, please. >> okay. >> you know the relationship that the judge has with these two lawyers, that was the subject of the recusal motion. you know that mr. mole doesn't know the facts behind it, and you say nothing. and you think that's perfectly
fine for your client, is at right? >> say nothing about what? what do i say nothing about? i told -- they knew that they were all friends to begin with. that brought some fear to them, because they thought the judge would lean toward a friend. i told them he wouldn't. and then, i don't know -- what are you telling me, i knew that i should have disclosed? >> do you think, mr. gardener, that if you knew the judge was hitting up bob creel -- owe. >> i didn't know that. for the second or third time, i didn't know the judge was hitting up bob creely. oh for the gift for his son, i knew that. i knew that everybody in the judge's circle had been asked to participate in a gift for timmy porteous so that he could extern. i knew that. >> so mr. gardener, you have got a multi-multimillion dollar case. and you get hit up by the judge in that case -- >> sorry, sir. that is -- don't say hit up. you can characterize it how you like. >> i will.
>> you get asked for money by the judge while that case is under submission. you know that a counsel -- from the firm on the other side is also getting hit up by that rotten bastard for money. >> wrong. >> you think you have no disclosure duty? >> wrong. timmy porteous' ex turnship is in '94. i join in '97. the case is tried in '97. the extern occurred before the case even went before the judge. >> so you knew when you got -- >> do you know those dates, though? >> mr. gardener, according to your recollection, then, u knew when you got into the case that one of the attorneys from the opposing firm had given money to the judge. and you felt no disclosure duty on that. and you didn't feel any disclosure duty that you had given money to the judge for his son, either. is that your understanding of the ethical standards, that judge are jones doesn't understand and judge benevitiz doesn't understand? >> no money was given to judge porteous for the externship of
timmy porteous. you're trying -- your question -- you're totally wrong. the moneys that trotten bastard bob creely's comment is the fact that someone asked him for something. that's bob's way. but the money went to timmy porteous. it was a gift to a friend's son. i knew timmy porteous the day he was born. i just hugged him in the hallway when i entered here. and i've known him and he's a fun young man, he's a fine lawyer. and you tell me there's an ethical problem with me giving a friend's child a gift? and that gift should exclude people, and i knew the other side gave a gift in a social context to his son that i should go some way file a recusal motion? >>r. gardener, you -- do you know what an ex parte contact is? >> i'm sorry, sir. >> ex parte contact is? >> ex parte contract? i think i do. >> ex par contact.
yes, sir. >> you understand that's having contact with a judge who has a pending case with you outside the presence of other counsel you understand that? >> i understand. >> am i stating what that is, accurately? >> for what purpose is the contact made with the judge? >> just -- mr. gardener, am i explaining an ex parte contact correctly? >> i don't know. you can explain it any way you want and you can explain it to the panel. >> objection. i believe an ex parte contact has to be in the case. the congressman is referring to an ex parte contact with a counsel. >> what is your objection? >> objecting to the question. it's not accurate. he's asking the witness about whether he has an ex parte contact and he says the contact with another counsel. >> contact. >> okay. the objection is overruled. >> mr. gardener. >> and i think, mr. gardener, if you would -- i know that you're a lawyer, and -- but it would be really helpful if you would try to answer questions and not ask questions. >> thank you, ma'am, i will.
>> if you try to do that, i think we can go more quickly. >> mr. gardener, you understand -- well, let me ask you. in your view of the ethics of legal practice, is it appropriate for you to speak with a judge about a pending case outside the presence of other counsel? >> it is wrong for a counsel to ex parte conversation with a judge at any time about a case that they have without the other counsel there. >> and so it would be improper for you, or anyone else, in the liljiberg case, worth hundreds of millions, to be talking privately with the judge about issues in the case, wouldn't it? >> yes. >> and one of the most significant parts of judge porteous's decision in that case, one of the most controversial parts, was a decision he made to award the
hospital back to the liljiberg's wasn't it? >> yes, sir. >> that was a devastating decision for the liljibergs, wasn't it? >> he awarded the hospital back. it wasn't devastating to the liljibergs. life mark. >> excuse me, levy stating to life mark. >> i'm listening. >> do you recall -- well, didn't you testify that you may have talked privately with the judge during that case -- >> you know, i saw that -- >> please let me finish. didn't you testify in the grand jury that you may have talked privately, may have talked privately with the judge while the case was under submission about whether he should give the hospital back to lifemark? >> on direct. >> liljiberg, excuse me. >> on direct, i commented, we went back every day. i saw may -- may have. but i corrected myself in one of
these many statements that everybody wants you to give, that i said that lenny levinson was there, i remember him being there, and he said i think it was chicken doo-doo on what they had to take because of the mortgage not being reinscribed and the foreclosure occurring. and i said, you may not like that, your honor, but it is legal. and it dfinitely was legal that the foreclosure occurred. but i told him, the foreclosure was also legal, and he couldn't give the hospital back. i advocated my client's position. now -- >> mr. gardener, my question was actually very simple. let's pull up the grand jury testimony so we can see exactly what you said, and you can see whether it was accurate or inaccurate. page 54 of the grand jury. bottom of the page. this is you testifying. i had some heated discussions with him, meaning the judge. i had a heated discussion with him on the liljiberg case, and i
remember him getting upset at me. i think it was when the lawyers were there. it may have been when only he and i were there. but i told him, i said i think this is exactly what i said, big boy, i don't think -- care how big you think you are, but even a federal judge can't overturn, because i've done a lot of real estate, i represent the clerk of cot in real estate actions, a judicial sale that has occurred in state court absent fraud and ill practices, and none have been shown. i think i said that to him at the trial, and i m have reiterated it at some other point in time to influence him. that was your testimony, wasn't it? >> that's my testimony, sir. and i want to tell you that lenny levinson was present, and it was at one of the afternoon breaks when he commented about it. and when i say influence him, i didn't want m to get the idea that absent fraud or ill practices, that anyone had the legal authority to offset a judicial sale hike like that.
and if i can making a legal argument to a judge with the other side there to try and persuade him, and the use of the word influence, but i've never tried to influence jue porteous at any point in time, illegally, without the other side the. we never talked about this case outside of the courtroom and the pretrials. and when i say other people, we had other meetings at the nice table and chairs that all deral judges have in their conference om, where that same point was brought up again with other lawyers there, and possibly mr. mole. >> mr. gadener, you're not disputing this was your testimony in march of 2006, are you? >>hose are the word -- those are the words, sir, but i'm explaining to you that i never -- >> mr. gardener, i'm just asking you whether you dispute your testimony. do you think your memory in 2006, much closer to the time these events was better or do you think your memory years later in this proceeding is better? >> my memory hasn't changed,
sir. i never had an ex parte conversation with judge porteous about the liljinberg, matter, you know, because let me tell you what. had had i done at, the result may have been a lot different. and i told everyone at the beginning, i was not going to do that. >> so when you said in the grand jury, it may have been when only he and i were there -- >> and i were there in the back with levinson, sir, the third time. >> mr. gardener, was that accurate when you said that? is that the best of your recollection at the time, that it may have been when only you and he were there? >> i never had an ex parte conversation without all of the parties involved in the case, sir. >> and did you also state that i may have rerated that at some other point in time to try and influence him? >> i may have tried to make the point stronger, because the judge, in one of the conferences we had in all these days, was not happy about the fact that he looked like someone put over on somebody. and i was explaining to the
judge, the legal significance of the indescription and the mortgages and everything. mr. levinson -- lenny levinson new real estate law, too. we have had many heated discussions, becau lenny and i were arguing about that in front of the judge, but him saying, look how underhanded this was. and i said, lenny, you know this isn't under handed. if the mortgage isn't there and a foreclose credit to who hands at $7.2 million judgment can foreclose, he can do that. that was the argument. read ifor what you want. >> in fact, mr. gardener, the point you made to the big boy, that he couldn't take the hospital away, the point you made was correct. wasn't it? he lacked the power to take that hospital away, didn't he? >> i belie it was correct then, now, and i think the fifth circuit agreed with me. >> let me ask you one last thing, mr. gardener. >> please.
>> you were aware during the liljiberg case, weren't you, that lawyers involved with that case were trying to provide benefits to the judge to influence his decision. you were aware of that, weren't you? >> no. >> that was your belief at the time, wasn't it? >> no. i kw of no benefits that were done by the other side to influence the judge. >> you believe -- you believed -- mr. gardener, you believed exactly that's what was happening, didn't you? >> no. >> please call up page 50 of the grand jury testimony. let me read this for you. question can you -- >> can you make it big e please, so i can read it? >> yes, please blow up, beginning with were you aware. were y aware of any payments made to porteous or on behalf of
porteous related to that litigation, referring to the liljiberg case. answer, by whom. question, by anyone. answer, not by me, if that's the question. if the question is, did i pay or give anything in connection with that litigation to judge porteous, the answer is no. question, are you aware of anybody else. answer, no. question, having done so, are you aware of anybody providing benefits to membs of his fami. answer, i don't know what kind of benefits, you know, some benefits were provided. i just don't know what kind. question, well, let's break that down. what do you have, what are you talking about when you say some benefits were provided? answer, i don't know. i don't know what i'm talking about. i don't know. i -- i just have a feeling -- to answer your question honestly, i figure there are other people who have provided benefits, or leave it tried to, you know, b him a drink, buy him a whatever or give him something. i don't know. i -- i don't -- i was never there when any of that occurred. i just think that probably other
people who were trying to influence judge porteous. was that your testimony in the grand jury? >> it's what the words say. >> no further questions. >> madam chair, we have a brief redirect. >> mr. gardener, let me just ask a few questions, just to make sure we understand your testimony. it's on. what role did mr. levinson play in the liljiberg case? >> he was on the lead counsel. >> so he was on the other side. >> he was.
>> so when you and he had a conversation in front of judge, that was not an ex parte communication, is that correct? >> we had many conversations in front of the judge with different parties. there were six, seven lawyers on liljiberg's side, three, four, five on mole's side, and different lawyers would interface with the judge at different times. we may have had some with all attorneys present in the conference room, the kickoff rules and stuff like that to begin the case. but there were consequence majority meetings, because the issues in this thing were so diverse. i think mr. mole was an excellent lawyer who really had his hand on this case, knew about it. but it was multifaceted litigation. interesting lililililililililii >> thank you. >> does the panel have any questions? senator yudal. >> mr. gardener, could you
exain to me a little bit about the -- this fee that you got $100,000, i understand, as a result. you were in and you were counsel for lifemark, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and you got $100,000, as a result of that. yes, sir. a flat fee. >> yeah. and then you gave $,000, i think your testimony is, to this -- >> tom wilkinson, yes, sir. >> who is a county official? >> he's a lawyer, he had a civil pracce, and he worked for the county, yes, sir. >> he was doing both things? >> yes, sir. >> and how did it come about that you got the agreement reached that you were -- when you got your payment, you were going to give him back, i guess as a fineder's fee or something -- >> not a finder's fee. >> tell me how it happened. >> tom and i had a lot of cases together. we had some personal injury cases together, we had some criminal cases together, his office was doing dwis and other white collar misdemeanors.
and he would send me domestic cases and i would work on those. he would -- we would go meet with a client and he would give me a referral fee, i would give him a referral fee. tom asked for the referral fee, based upon the fact that he interfaced with the client, and actually created the client. in terms of he and i working on it. although i want to make it crystal-clr that mr. wilkinson's participation was minimal. when i say minimal, he talked with me about it on a regular basis, asked me how it was going, and i told him what was going on in the trial and stuff. but as far as taking part in the trial, he did not. >> at what point did the discussion come about that you were going to get -- you were going to give him back the $30,000? of the $100,000? >> tom set that number and asked for that. >> set that number at the beginning, at what point? >> very beginning. i think after i had been retained and i don't have those records. katrina has taken so much from so many of us in louisiana. i wish i could go back and see that. i tried to do that.
>> but you don't have any memory of how the discussion occurred, and when it was decided. i mean, did he come to you and say, you know, you should get in on this, because you're going to get $100,000, but i want to have $30,000 back, as a result of that? >> senator, to be perfectly ne with you, i don't know if the discussion came at the time i was retained, shortly thereafter, or thereafter. but it occurred at one of those points in times that mr. wilkinson asked for a portion of the fee. >> you say it wasn't a finder's fee. what was it? >> well, we had a relationship, senator. our offices worked closely on a lot of cases. tom and i split fees on different cases, he would refer cases to me. i would refer cases to him. we had an ongoing working relationship. this wasn't a one-time thing, where tom picks up the phone and says, i'm going send you a client, you need to send me money. we've got a working relationship
on fees and cases. this wasn't the first case that his office and my office had ever worked on. and not only did i work with tom, he had a number of lawyers in his office. i worked with them, too. they sent me cases, they didn't handle. i participated and sent them cases, worked them with them. they worked some with me. so we had an ongoing working relationship with cases, long before liljiberg came along. >> do you have any knowledge that mr. wilkinson got any money from lifemark or any of the lifemark attorneys? >> i do not, sir. i have no information to that effect. nor has anyone ever told me anything about that. i do know he talked -- he was very close to mr. mole along this way. >> just one other area i wanted to ask about. as you probably know, mr. amato and mr. creely have occurred their legal licenses. >> correct. >> and i assume that they felt
that they had done something wrong, as a resu of that, right? >> don't know that. >> you don't know that. >> i know they have surrendered their licenses. >> and have you -- do you still have your law license? >> i still have my law license. >> and have you been investigated by the state bar association? >> only thing the state bar association did when they saw my name in the "times picky union" they sent letters out to everybody, and they said get porteous and everybody who has ever known him to the secd and third generation. >> and you're in good standing now. >> as of now, i'm in good standing. i believe that everything that i've done, including money given to tom porteous over the years -- and i calculate that. nobody wants to bring that out -- at about a couple thousand dollars over 20-something years, because $100 -- i calculate about $100 a year. mr. -- judge porteous didn't ask me every day of his life to give him money. you know, we're out on occasion, he would say, you got a few extra dollars. i'm guessing that.
and at one point in time, the grand jury testimony says well it could be $3,000, and i said far less than that. but if i calculate that i at least gave him $100 a year for 20 years, i know it's $2,000, give or take. but i don't see that as an ethical problem in a friend giving money, loaning money, without the expectation of recove. i gave some bum in front of the red top motel last night $2. >> okay, just -- >> very poor hotel, by the way. >> two more questions here. you're in good standing with the louisiana state bar right now? >> i amin good standing with the louisiana state bar, but believe me -- >> and that's fine. >> believe me -- i will ultimately -- there will ultimately -- i will answer the same questions to the bar association after you. the senate panel and the senate votes. i'm sure there are going to be additional questions >> all right. are you under investigation today? >> there is a file open,
senator, and a letter has been written. and that's where it's at right now. i'm sure that the bar association is waiting for all of this to come, and i will be asked to make a statement as to my participation in liljiberg, my participation with judge porteous, our friendship, gifts, any of those things. >> so there's an open investigation now, is your understanding. >> well, when you say open -- i received a letter in 2008. one letter so far. and i've retained counsel, and she wrote a multipage letter back saying that she believes that everything that i have done in part of that inquiry was legal under e ethical and codal articles in the state of louisiana. >> thank you, mr. gardener. >> thank you, senator. >> senator kauffman. >> yeah, just to get an idea of kind of the gretna mentality. you said you just gave a few
thousand dollars to judge porteous. what would you say if you knew that amato and creely gave him $20,000 over ten years? >> i heard that, only through here. i want to make it crystal-clear that i don't know that. >> no, i was just trying to get -- what would you think about that? you made the point to say i've only given him a couple thousand. would that concern you? >> my couple thousand? >> no, no, the 20,000. if you knew that two attorneys in town had given him $20,000 over a period of ten years, would that concern you, a sitting judge, that they were doing -- that they were appearing before? >> that they were trying to influence the judge through money? >> yeah. >> that would concern me in any case i was involvein, friend or no friend. >> i'm just trying to get a flavor of the idea. you gave him a couple thousand dollars. $20,000 would be a serious amount of money to be given. >> it's a serious am of money. >> let me ask you another qution. you said -- during the liljiberg case, would you be concerned if you knew that amato and creely
had given him $2,000? >> it would have raised my curiosity, i would have of course wanted to foe what was that about, was it done to influence the judge or whatever. >> so in other words, that -- the fact just that they gave him $2,000 would not concern you until you found out what the money was for. >> as the -- as judge jones said, i had a duty to inquire. and i would have inquired as to what the $2,000 was about. >> no, i'm just asking in terms of, you know, you're in -- by now he's a federal judge in new orleans, but there's been a lot about the gretna mentality. i'm just trying to get straight in the gretna mentality you were on that case, you were on one side and you knew someone on the other side had given the judge in the case $2,000, would you be concerned about that, or uld you just have to find out what it was about before you were concerned? >> i would be concerned and i would make an inquiry if i thought on behalf of my client that that s in any way, shape
or form done to influence the judge or done to obtain some advantage for their client. >> so just the fact that he got $2,000, you need some more information. you don't think it's improper for someone to give a judge in a case they're involved in, as an attorney, $2,000. for any reason. >> for any reason? >> yeah. >> i would still be concerned for any reason, and i would still make an inquiry. >> thank you very much. >> mr. -- senator rich. >> i don't think i'm going get an answer to this, but i'm going to try. >> you'll get an answer. >> senator udall asked you about the $30,000 and what it was for. and i listened here for about a minute and a half while you explained about all other cases that you had with the gentleman. but you never said what the 0,000 was for. you said to try it again? iefly? >> the $30,000 to mr. wilkinson in connection with the case.
he started talking with mr. mole. i guess -- i want everybody to remember now, like i said, januarof '97, late last week in january, as i remember, i think when my calendar said i got a call from tom mole about that time, and they didn't sign me on until march. again, i was reluctant to take it. but mr. wilkinson had indicated that because of our relationship of sharing fees and working cases together, he asked for $30,000 on that case. yes, sir. and i gave it to him. i'm not denying that. >> and what was it for? >> fees on a case that we were sharing. we shared fees on cases. i didn't -- i didn't initiate that case. mole didn't talk to me. mole only sent stuff to wilkinson. he was working on mr. wilkinson to try and get me to sign on to that case. >> mr. gardener, you cled it a referral fee, if i recall your testimony. correct? >> well, a referral fee would
indicate that i didn't have any relationship with him, senator. well, he referred the case to you. >> he referred the case to me, and we had an ongoing relationship, where cases were referred back and forth. not just between tom and me, but between tom's lawyers and his office and my office. >> i don't see anything wrong with the referral it does seem strange, i have to admit, in this context. but you have a right to make a referral fee to somebody who seems to me somebody who's referred case. >> is that what it was, referral fee? >> i wouldn't classify it as a referral fee. i would classify it as the ongoing relationship because, you know, i agree with senator hatch that referral fees are not illegal, but the code calls for it to have some type of relationship, which i have with mr. wilkinson -- you can't just send me a case and do absolutely nothing on the case and me not having a relationship with you, and you want a big payday. if you and i are lawyers and
you're sending me cases and i'm sending you cases and we have a relationship, it would even out over time because on some cases i may get a bigger portion for a small amount of work or vice versa. but a referral fee in strict -- just saying send me a case and i'll send you the money, that's not the relationship i had, and i don't want anybody to leave here thinking that, oh, mr. wilkinson calls up for a big payday. we had an ongoing working relationship where clients went back and forth. we got cases. we shared them. he was a friend of mine who we did that for years. and years. >> madam chairman, he wins. i have no further questions. >> okay. does anyone else have a question? >> just to be clear, mr. wilkinson was not co-counsel in the life mark matter, he had no standing in that case, correct? >> he was t, senator. >> no further questions. >> and it is correct, mr.
gardner, that you went to las vegas on the bachelor party trip, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and you helped pay for that trip, correct? >> no, ma'am. >> you didn't pay anything? >> no, ma'am. they certainly would have asked me about that. i paid for my own way. i bunked with a gentleman by the name of john gardner, a friend of judge porteous's and i and 52, 62 hours on the ground, i ent most of the time -- john and i went to a couple shows. he didn't gamble, i didn't gamble. we went out and had a couple fine meals and looked at some of the architect back in 1999 that was going up there. and i want to assure everybody here, since the question wasn't asked since i thinkit's important, that there was no discussion at any point in time about cases. i can assure everyone that was the last thing on anybody's mind. everybody was up there to celebrate the young man's upcoming wedding. and i guess to have a good time. >> okay. you're excused. >> thank you very much.
>> oh they will vote on the matter, continuing the impeachment trial on the c-span networks, and you'll see all the testimony on our website at c- span.org. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> for me or anyone else who is considering continuing on in politics, i think the question is, "do you have a vision for the country?" and do you have a demonstrated set of experiences that sure you can handle it and get it done. >> ago in governor tim pawlenty, on growing up in minnesota and
his eight years. tonight on c-span. >> and sarah palin, a former alaska governor, in the 2008 vice-presidential republican candidate, spoke friday in des moines, iowa, at the ronald reagan fundraising dinner there. we will have that tonight at 7:15 and again at 10:15 tonight on c-span. >> he writes a column for "the washington post," -- >> we would not have had a black middle class if we did not have general motors, ford, and chrysler. >> in 2008, he supported the bailout, and he will talk about his life and what is it in the future for automakers. that is tonight on c-span and 8:00 p.m..
>> hello, cbc. [cheers and applause] well, it is wonderful to be back with all of you. i wanted to acknowledge, first of all, the chair of the cbc, barbara, for the outstanding work she has done this year. somebody who is not only a passionate defender of our domestic agenda, but also somebody who knows more about our foreign policy than just about anybody on the hill. bcb,the chair of the v donald -- the cbc.
sebelius. she is here. our united states trade representative, the ambassador is here. and, obviously, it is a great honor to be able to speak backstage to this year's phoenix award honorees, harry belafonte, sheila oliver, and others. thank you for all that you have done for america. i know you have spent a good deal of time during cbc weekend, talking about a whole range of issues and talking about what the future holds not just for the african-american community but for the united states of america.
i have been spending some time thinking about that, too. and at this time, a great challenge, one source of inspiration is a story behind the founding of the congressional black caucus. i want us all to take a moment and remember what was happening 40 years ago wrote -- 40 years ago, when 14 black members of congress decided to come together and form this congress. it was 1969. more than one decade had passed since the supreme court decided brown vs. the board of education. it had been years since selma, since dr. king had told america it of his dream, all of the culminating in the passage of the civil rights act and the voting rights act.
the founders of this caucus could look but and feel vote -- look back and feel pride and progress, feeling confident that america was finally moving in the right direction. but they knew they could not afford to rest on their morals. they cannot be complacent. -- they could not rest on their laurels. too many wrongs to be righted. that is why the cbc was formed, to right wrongs, to be a conscience, and at the very first cbc dinner, the great actor and activist aussie davis told the audience america was at the crossroads, and although his
speech was magnificent and eloquent, he boiled his message down to a nice little phrase when it came to help america would move forward. he said it is not demand, it is the plan. it is not the man, it is the plan. that was true 40 years ago. it is true today. [cheers and applause] we all understood that during my campaign. it was not just about electing a black president. it was about a plan to rescue our economy and rebuild it on a new foundation. [applause]
statistics just came out this week. from 2001 to 2009, wrote -- 2009, the middle class went down 5%. think about that. people's incomes during the period when the economy was growing went down 5%. that is what our agenda was about, making sure we were changing that pattern. it was about giving every hardworking americans the chance to join a growing and vibrant middle class and giving the middle class ladders and steps to success. it was about putting the american dream within the reach of all americans, not just us, no matter who you are, no matter
what you look like, no matter where you come from, everybody would have access to the american dream. i do not have to tell you we are not there yet. this is the worst since the great depression. it has taken a devastating toll on all sectors of our economy. it has hit americans of all races and regions and all walks of life. but as has been too often in our history as has been true in other recessions, this one came down with a particular vengeance on the african- american community. it added to problems of a lot of neighborhoods have been facing long before the storm of this recession, long before this recession were black men and
women throughout our cities and towns who had given up looking for a job. kids, standing around on the corners without any prospects for the future. long before this recession, there were boxful of shuttered stores that had not been opened in generations -- there were blocks of shuttered stores. the average note -- the average american community has been struggling for quite some time. it has been a decade in which progress gestalt reject has stock, and we know that repairing the damage, climbing our way out of the recession, we understand it will take time. it is not going to happen overnight, but what i want to say to all of you tonight is that we have begun the hard work
of moving this country forward. we are moving in the right direction. [applause] when i took office, our economy was on the brink of collapse, but we acted immediately, and the cbc acted immediately, and we took steps to end the economic meltdown in free fall, and now, our economy is rolling again. the month i was sworn in, we have lost 750,000 jobs. we have now seen eight months in a row in which we have added private-sector jobs. we are in a different place than we were one year ago or 18 months ago, and let's face it. taking some of the steps was not easy.
there were a lot of naysayers, a lot of skepticism. there was a lot of skepticism about whether we could get gm and chrysler back on their feet. there were folks who wanted to walk away, essentially see another 1 million jobs lost, but we said, "we have got to try." and now, the u.s. automotive industries are profitable again and hiring again, back on their feet again, on the move again. but there were folks who were wondering if we could hold the banks accountable for what they have done to taxpayers or were skeptical about whether we could make infrastructure investment and investment in clean energy and investments in education and hold ourselves accountable for how that money was spent. there was a lot of skepticism about what we were trying to do, and a lot of it was unpopular. but i want to remind everybody
here, you did not elect me to do what was popular. you elected me to do what was right. that is what we have been fighting together for, to do what is right. we do not have our figure out to the went to know what is right. that is why we passed health insurance reform that will make it illegal for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. historic reform that will give over 30 million americans the chance to finally obtain quality care, tackle the disparities in the health-care system, put a cap on the amount you can be charged in of pocket expenses, because nobody should go broke
because they got sick in a country like the united states of america. not here. that is why we passed wall street reform, to finally cracked down on the predatory practices of some of the banks and mortgage companies. so we can protect hard-working families from abuses fees or unjustified rates every time they use a credit card to make a mortgage payment or go to a pay a load operation or take up a student loan were overdrawn their accounts at an atm -- or overdraw their account. this is note main street never again has to pay for wall street mistakes. that is why we made historic investment in education, including one program and
shifted tens of billions of dollars that were going to subsidize banks and make sure that money was giving millions of more children the chance to go to college and have a better future. that is what we have been doing. [cheers and applause] this is why we are keeping the promises i made on the campaign trail. we passed tax cuts for 95% of working families. we expanded national services, americorps to the peace corps. we were looking at the enforcement of civil rights law. " we changed disparity of the consequence of the hard work of many in the cbc. we stopped giving tax breaks to companies to shift jobs to overseas so that we can give tax breaks to those to keep jobs in
the united states. we ended our combat mission in iraq and brought nearly 100,000 troops home. in afghanistan, we're breaking the momentum of the taliban and training afghan forces so that next summer, we can begin the transition to afghan responsibility. and in the meantime, we're making sure we take care of our veterans as well as they have taking care of us. we do not just talk about our veterans, and gives speeches about our veterans. we actually put the money in to make sure we're actually taking care of our veterans. it even as we manage these national security priorities, we are partnering with developing countries to feed and educate and house their people. we're helping haiti rebuild
following an unprecedented response from the united states government and united states military in the wake of the devastation there. in sudan, we are committed to doing our part. we, the parties thereto do their part to fully implement the comprehensive peace agreement and insure lasting peace and accountability in darfur. as i said it in gonna, it is in our strategic efforts -- in ga nha. that is not just good for them, that is good for us. that is what we have been doing, cbc, at home and abroad. it has been an important time. we have a historic legislative session. we could have been just keeping
things quiet and peaceful around here because change is hard, but we decided to do what was hard and necessary to move this country forward. members of the cbc have helped deliver some of the biggest progress in one generation, which will give more pathways for men and women to climb of poverty, but we have still got a long way to go. there are too many people still out of work, too many families facing foreclosure, too many businesses and neighborhoods struggling to rebound. during the course of this recession, poverty has gone up to a 15-year high. so it is not surprising given the hardships we're seeing all across the land that a lot of
people may not be feeling very energized, very engaged renown. a lot of folks may be feeling the politics may be something that they get involved with every four years when there is the presidential election, but they do not see why they should bother the rest of the time. which brings me back to ossie davis. he knew it was the plan and not the man. " the middle class is still shaking. too many folks are still locked in poverty. students graduating for a
career, we still have schools where half of the kids are dropping out. we have to give oliver chosen the best education the world has to offer. we still have to implement health care reform so that brings down costs for all people. we have got to make sure that we're putting people to work, working on runways and school was. we have got more work to do. now, remember the other side has a plan, too. it is a plan to turn back the clock on every bit of progress we have made, and the last election was a changing of the guard. now, haute we have to guard the change. -- now, we have to guard the change.
[applause] because everything we are for, our opponents and spent years fighting against. they said no to an employment insurance and no to tax cuts for ordinary working families and note to business loans and notes to providing additional assistance for those who want to go to school. that is their model, "no, we cannot" -- their motto. can you imagine having that on your bumper sticker? it is not very inspiring. in fact, the only agenda they have got is to go back to the same policies that got us into this in the first place. i will give you an example. they want to borrow $700 billion. we do not have $700 billion note from the saudis or the chinese or whoever is lending
and use it on tax cuts, more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, the average tax cut $100,000 for those making $1 million or more. the next few years are going to be tough budget years. this is why i call for a freeze on some spending. we are borrowing $700 billion, not paying for it, it has to come from somewhere. where do you think it has to come from? who is going to pay for these $100,000 checks going to millionaires? hi working families all across america that are already struggling? we should not be passing tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires right now. that is not what we should be doing. we should be helping the middle-
class grow. we should be provided pathways of poverty, and yet, the man with a plan to be speaker of the house, john boehner, is looking to use the money to keep hundreds of thousands of essential personnel across the states. we call these jobs, and i quote, government jobs, suggesting they were not worth saving, teacher jobs, firefighter jobs. as a teacher in her job is worth saving. ask your uncle who is a firefighter if his job is worth saving? ask your cousin is a police officer if her job is worth saving. ask your neighbor if their jobs are worth saving, because i think a job is worth saving it is keeping america strong and secure. that is what i believe. that is what is at stake in this.
they do not what the special interests. we are fighting on behalf of the american people. they want to take us backwards. we want to move forward. their main strategy is, they are betting you will come down with the case of an mischa and that you will forget what happened between 2001 and 2009 oat, what that agenda did for this country when they were in charge. and they spent almost one decade driving the economy into a ditch, and now, we have been in that ditch and a put on our boots. it has been hot down there. we have been pushing the car, sweating, and they are standing on the sidelines, slipping a slur be -- sipping a slurpee. they passed us on the shoulder, and they say, "we want the keys back." we tell them, "you cannot have
the keys back. you do not know how to drive." [cheers and applause] you cannot have it back. bat is right. . cannot give them the keys. i just want to point out that if you what your car to go forward, what do you do? you prepare it in d -- you put it in d. if you want to go backwards, what do you put it in? that is all i want to say. that is not a coincidence. all right, i have got it.
we have got to move this program along. there are those who want to turn back the clock. they want to do what is right politically instead of what is right period. think about the next election. we're thinking about the next generation. we cannot think short-term when so many people are of work. .not in so many families are still hurting. we need to finish the play an elective to put in place, and i need you because this is not going to be e-zpass., and i did not promise easy. i said back on the campaign the change is going to be hard. sometimes, it is going to be slower than some folks would like. sometimes we would be making compromises and people would be frustrated. i said i could not do it alone.
this is not just a matter of getting the elected. suddenly, i was on to snap my fingers, and it was all going to go away? it was a matter of all of us getting involved, all of us staying committed, all of us sticking with a plan for a better future. that is how we have always moved the country forward. each and every time we have made a big change it, from this country's founding to emancipation to women's suffrage to workers' rights, it has not come from a man. it has come from a plan. it has come from a grass-roots movement, rallying around a cause. that is what the civil rights movement made possible vote. foot soldiers, like so many of you, sitting down at lunch counters, standing up for freedom made it possible for me to be here today. americans throughout our history
making their union more equal, making air union more just, making our union more perfect, one step at a time. that is what we need again, so i need everybody to go back to your neighbors, go back to your workplace, go to the churches and a barbershop and the beauty shop and tell them we have got more work to do. tell them that the time for action is now and that each and every person in this country knows what is at stake, and they step up to the plate. we are willing to rise to this moment like we've always done and to get there. we will write our own destiny. thank you. god bless you, and may god bless the united states of america. ♪
>> president obama returns to the campaign trail tomorrow, meeting with democrats at a private fund-raising dinner. continuing campaign coverage on the c-span networks and at c- span.org. republican senator lindsey graham of south carolina is the keynote speaker at a forum of terrorism hosted by the american enterprise institute. it starts on c-span. >> the c-span video library is agreed restores in washington. -- is a great resource in washington, all free. watch what you want, when you want.
>> now, a conversation on the mood of the voters as the midterm elections approach, from today's "washington journal," about 45 minutes. host: here's the book of our next guest, our patchwork nation, the surprising truth about the real america, the 12 community types that make up our nation. also the front page of the christian science monitor, america sings the blues. its author here. what is the electorate mood and why is it more than the sluggish economy? guest: there's a feeling i think amongst a lot of americans that they've kind of lost control of their lives. it's the sense that being part of an american is you control your own destiny, or at least the belief. and what's happened with the recession really over the past i guess two, three years now is
a feeling that not only that something is wrong in the country, but that we're not really hur how to fix it. and when people look at that, that gist them the blues and it also makes them surveily. host: to quote from the piece or one paragraph from the piece this morning. it says in a microcosm, that is what is behind much of the national mood. it's not just uncertainty of what's next. it's the difficulty of even understanding what went wrong and how to correct it. americans who take such pride in controlling their fate and deciding their destinies are feeling that they are being buffetted by forces beyond their control and comp hencetion. host: i had a great guest: i had a great conversation, i've been to these 12 communities so i know a lot of people, in eagle, colorado where i went to do this piece. the person i talked to that gave me the idea for that quote is i talked to the person in
charge of just economic development for the area around eagle county, and the city of eagle and eagle county. and i said, so when is this all going to come back? they said, well, i think it will be back in a couple of years. then, i really don't know. there's so much going on in the world i can't say what's going on. just talking to him, it's true. there's just a feeling that we think it's coming back. in eagle in particular, so much of what they did was built on construction. they have the tourism, the ski industry, the hiking, kind of the summer fishing, hiking industry. but really made the place go and grow for those last decade was construction. and that really does seem like it's gone and it's not really clear when it's going to come back. host: one part about that piece about construction and i thought that the viewers would find this part interesting. in gypsum, about 20 minutes
from the city of eagle, that there's a new public golf course and that it only became a public golf course when the old fa silt, the semi-private ranch went into foreclosure. it was not the most expensive place to play in the area. but with initiation fees of $15,000 it wasn't cheap. now you can play 18 holes of golf with a cart for $49. guest: not a bad deal. host: what happened? guest: what they say, the city bought the course. it was just sitting there on the market. it went into foreclosure and they said we'll buy it and it's great. the people will be able to play golf. and it's beautiful. designed by a professionally designed course. a beautiful setting. what it says in eagle and in gypsum is that there's a way of life, veel is extremely wealthy. but this extended kind of
marched further west into the valley. and that was based on, predicated on the growth of the area. basically all those people in gip sum worked construgs. and those construction jobs paid very, very well, and all of a sudden people who weren't thinking they would be able to buy a $400,000 house were able to do that. they were flush. suddenly that stuff dried up. they don't have the money any more. the net value, the net worth of a lot of people in eagle, not that they're all necessarily poor or they're starving. but what they have to their name is a lot smaller now. and gypsum is pretty far out. that area is not going to come back for long. they know that and they're trying to embrace it and make it a positive. host: do they also see it that the excesses of 2000 are not
going to come back, either? you're not going to have these semi-private golf courses in an area where most people who live there are construction workers. guest: and a lot don't work in construction any more. construction jobs, you know, there are a lot more construction jobs and building going on. when the construction goes away, the jobs go away. everybody will tell you that the go attitude of the early part of the last decade is gone and it's not really clear when it's coming back. host: so eagle, colorado is one of the 12 that you visited peeferedically to put together your book the patchwork nation. so what kind of community? because you give names to all these communities. what kind of community is eagle? guest: it really is a boom town. it doubled in size in six to eight years. and all these boom towns share some common traits but the biggest is massive growth. they did -- you've got to be
careful. they had massive growth. some of it's gone and they had a big influx of hispanics and latinos. a lot were with the construction jobs. a lot of those people have left. incomes have dropped. those places took off in the last decades, things don't look good. other places that are well known are clark county, nevada, and riverside county in california. those are a couple that people have heard a lot about foreclosures on in the radio and tv and print media. and there are placeses like that. and the point of the book and the project patch work nation is there are places like that in america. we tend to think of the country as states but there's -- i grew up in michigan. you get up into michigan miltsha country. what we're trying to do with the book and the project is we took a lot of demographic data,
as much as we could get our hands on, and we had it by county and we crunched it down to identify 12 different types of county in the united states. and we have all that data on top to look at what happened. and then we picked 12 places to go in on the ground level and just see what does it look like. host: another one is called the immigration nation. what is that? guest: those are communities with a lot of latinos and hispanics. and they tend to be based in the southwest. but the interesting thing is some of those counties pop up in other places around the country. and there's places that have had construction booms. in north carolina, the raleigh-durham area, there used to be one immigration nation community out there. we're going to recalibrate these things. when the new census numbers come in, a lot of these types will get remade. it will be interesting to see who goes up and who goes down. host: tractor company?
guest: what you think of as rural farming area. i go to iowa, a small town in northwestern iowa about 3,000 people. host: so in addition to the book, you also have a website and interactive map on the website where vures can go. what can viewers do with this? iveragesdz the nice thing about the map is there's a couple things you can do. you can scroll over and see where your county falls, the types. there's also a district map on there. so we've just literally within the last week have created a map of districts in america using the same kind of breakdown. host: congressional districts? guest: congressional districts. and you'll see there's the type map and another tab that says compare data. and the last tab is latest data. we've mapped a lot of different things. where are the gun stores, the whole foods, the wall marts.
they're interesting and fun but they're indicative of a place, which is what we're getting at. we're trying to get beyond socker moms and say let's talk about the communities and what the communities look like. host: let's go to the phone calls. frank on the independent line. and as we talk to you, we're going to try to play along with this interactive map and see what your area looks like, too. caller: thanks for taking my call. i want to say that i think all of this, the mall lays is fible finally coming back to hit us about this 30, 40 year loss of manufacturing in our country. and people say, oh, our output is the same and everything. but i can tell you that once you lose the manufacturing base, you don't recover it because you lose the inherent knowledge. mfering industry, particularly high level, aut motive, arrow space, those industries are very complex. once you lose your base,
talent, you never recover that because everybody is dancing -- advancing in the technologies and it doesn't come back. i worked for a company that manufactures capital equipment. and we send equipment to china and they hit us with a 17 to 20% tearive. that same product coming back to us is hit with a 3% tearive. and it just -- that's a difficult hurdle to overcome. and i just don't understand this, the people, particular economists when i hear them say what a great advantage this has been. if you were to take a poll in this country, 80 to 90% would be against -- maybe i'm exaggerating but it seems 80 to 90% would be against these trade agreements which are patently unfair to the u.s. manufacturing industry.
host: what county are you in? caller: west moreland. host: ok. guest: i grew up outside detroit. i'm very familiar with what the caller is talking about. this was a big dinner conversation in my house growing up. my concern about losing manufacturing base is not so much the loss of knowledge because i think we'll retain a lot of the engineering expertise and things like that. but what we're losing is the actual manufacturing jobs. those are very important jobs because what they give you is for people who don't have a college education, it's a good salary with good benefits and way to, if your kids want to go to college they can go to college. we think a lot of times in this country about the 50s and 60s how wonderful they were and the golden age, those who went to college could and everybody lived a nice life and everybody had two cars. but that rested on the idea that we had a lot of these
manufacturing jobs. and when you lose them you have problems. and i think when you take construction out of the next tune, because that's the other places you could go. they pay very well. so now you pul manufacturing out, manufacturing the percentage of the economy that's been cut in half. and it will come back but not what it was. and you pull these out and you will be down for a while now. what's the engine of the american economy? i'm not really sure about that yet and i think it's the caller is right to be concerned and it's something i think over the next ten years over this country we're going to have to figure out. . .
it is just you know -- if you been the pennsylvania and driven around, you understand that it is a big state. i do not think the amish are big into the foundry. in northern michigan, they pick cherries, grow crops, do agriculture. counties are big and inverse -- diverse, they give you a nice way to break down the country in a way that makes sense. host: bill, can you tell us what is the major economic driver of your area? caller: it don't seem to be too bad around here. you have a lot of mexicans.
there are a lot of chicken factories around here and stuff like that, where they race chickens and they produce -- raise chickens and they produce and sell them out to grocery stores. that is the main thing taken up the jobs -- taking up the jobs. what i'm concerned about -- we need to go back to our own way of life. we need to start making our own products. all we have to do is -- for starters, we need to stop buying our products from china. that is the number one thing right there. once we do that, we can collapse their economy overnight. their economy will collapse overnight once we stop buying their products. they will have a hard time selling in america is people
start buying american products. we have to do that. host: we got your point. e eagle, colorado, are they thinking about what is the next big export? guest: the question there is, what will we do? because, when you shift -- this is getting to the call about manufacturing -- when you shift from relying on manufacturing and construction, what are the jobs that are available? tourist and service jobs. you can make ok money in tourism, but it is not like what you can make been construction. the net worth of those homes will drop. i talked to a pizza guy quote cranes.wned two
he does not have health insurance. he is self-employed. you know, that is a pretty dramatic change in that person's life. multiplying that. construction is excavating, it's carpentry, its landscaping. all that money is gone. host: we talked about boom towns, immigration nations -- and other communities are empty nest and evangelical epicenters. guest: empty nests are people 55 and over. there is a county in florida called claremont. it has a couple of retirement communities. host: this is in florida? guest: it is in florida.
evangelical epicenters are places with a lot of conservative, evangelicals. and nixa, missouri, as one person described to me, they are probably in the bible belt, the buckle of the bible belt. they counted up the charts listing for sunday services. compared to the classifieds, it is more. church and faith is a big part of that community. the home of values voters. those places would be interesting to watch with the tea party movement. host: there is industrial metropolis, military bastions, more men outpost, and service workers centers -- and morman outposts.
is there one type of candidates that can run in this type of community? guest: no. when we talk about politics in the book, and we like to think every year that the country -- every four years, what will voters decide? when you look at the vote in these community types over the past three elections, 2000, 2004, 2008, the vast majority, the vote is not moving. it is incredibly stable. in others, it is more fluid, but they will not flip one way or the other. there are a couple that do fly lip. the money burbs did. the immigration asian communities, because immigration because -- because immigration
has become such an issue, it is evenly split. minority central -- that tends to be a lot of the old south with a large african-american population. but we also have some native american communities out west. the counties are similar and the way they break down, especially socially, and the way people interact. host: you said that evangelical epicenters are what to watch for tea party. what about the mormon outposts? guest: we are readily add them collapsed with the evangelical epicenters, but they are very different. mormon outposts evolved over time when the mormons, based in
salt lake city, went out. they are very conservative, but they are not christian conservative. they are not evangelicals. host: do they vote differently than evangelical secs? guest: if romney is a candidate in 2012, comparing what he does in the mormon outposts and evangelical epicenters, that would be interesting. host: if you read the book "under the banner of heaven," he makes the point that congress will not be able to legislate without thinking about the mormon vote. guest: it is an interesting group. but it is gone the other way in
terms of what we see it. the vote by county is getting more diluted. they are spreading out. in terms of the counties with a saltful moment vormon vote, lake city is not a mormon outpost. it is a boomtown. if mitt romney runs, and if you get in evangelical candidate, they could go at it. host: pat, you're ont h the air. caller: thank you. the problem that i see it largely in this country is the lack of facts on the evening news. we have very little sex. no one tells the truth. everybodye facts.
we rarely scratch the surface. that is dangerous for us. since we are talking about jobs and the 1970's, pittsburgh lost 250,000 jobs because of the upsweep of the steel mills. we have cleaner air and cleaner water locally, but we will have a mess we can never clean up. there is a myriad of problems, and i understand said governor rendell, who i used to be in isve with and now don't love, getting close to $1 million going around the state commenting on how wonderful the shell drilling is.
host: what did you hear there? guest: i think when you talk about the economy, when you talk about the evening news, number one, i think the evening news -- the audiences are declining. they need to do what they can it to get viewers. i think there are more places to go get information out. and you do not have to rely on the evening news. you can get on the computer, and there is a lot you can find out there. the big problem in terms of the media, and this is a point we make in the book, we tend to think of the internet as a network. it is wonderful because anyone could read the "the new york times" -- yes, it's true. when you go by the is community types, communities have certain kinds of economies, a certain kind of culture.
they are able to narrow cast these communities. in the east -- in this community, we tend to read these news sources. when you look at what is going on with the news media, because it is more spread out on the internet, there are different ways to get news. you can lock yourself into -- and that is something that you need to be concerned about. caller: good morning. i have heard a couple of callers who have called in and talking about china. basically, so far, the economic situation is, china is - -th- th that goes to china goes to the hedge funds. these are western investors who
have a big stake in china. it is not necessarily chai not taking jobs from the united states, it is -- not necessarily try not taking jobs from the united states-- china taking jobs from the united states. most politicians, it is greed. my congressman, when he first went to congress, she is now worth $3.8 million. host: are you voting against the incumbent in november? caller: it depends who is running against them. that is the situation. i tried to vote for the best possible, provided both of them are bad, i tried to get the very best. host: when you went across these different communities and you looked at them, is that there the same strand that runs
through them, that there is a distrust of washington. guest: right now, yeah. it feels like a very different country than it felt like into thousand eight. it really does. there is an enormous amount of distrust -- it feels like a very different country than it felt like into thousand eight. 2008. why can't this be fixed? there is a great quote from the former editor of the town of eagle, her husband said, we elect them. they go to washington, and they change. they are different people. we need to change the way that works. maybe we shall let everybody served one term and send them home. he is very frustrated. host: do these people believe
that about the insurgent candidates, these tea party candidates it? once they get there, it will change them, too? guest: i think they are leery of it. if they are behind a candidate, they believe in them and they will not change. you ask another candidate, i support them now, i do not know where they will be two years from now. a big part of their movement -- movement is a tough word for them -- the big part is the anger, the dissatisfaction, the distrust of even the people they are putting their and the concern that even when they come to washington, they will sell them out. host: jay on the republican lie in it in florida. caller: i am in marion county. the tax structure would be the main thing we need to change to
get our jobs back here. our tax structure is probably the highest you can get in corporate or ararea. fair tax seems like it would be a job magnet can get all those companies back. that is all i have to say on that subject. host: jeff, democratic line, portland, oregon. what is your comment or question? caller: basically, the reason why we are so prosperous in this country is because of innovation, whether it is the telephone, the car, the internet. the only thing that will drive our economy and make sure that we do not slip from the number one economy in the world is if we invest into renewable energy, and that is the future. that is the only way we will get
out of this economy we are in right now. host: are these communities talking about clean energy? guest: a lot of people see it as a way to turn things around. i would say to all issues like this, and to the caller, there is nothing wrong with innovation. i think the american economy is still very innovative. i love my iphone. it says engineered in america and assembled in china. it is cheaper to build in china, so that is where it is built. even when we innovate, even with the green energy, there were be a question of where the perpetual motion machine were rebuiill be built. i am not one that says we need to build walls around the country and stock goods from coming in, but we do need to understand that when we send
things to be built elsewhere, we have to understand the ramifications of that. we have not done that yet. caller: good morning. i think what might help the economy in america would be to have a tax deduction for anything that is made in america. if you want to buy a pair of socks made in america, you can write that up on your taxes. that is all i wanted to say. host: thanks, john. so, we have had a number of calls about exporting and manufacturing in china. does that describe the mood of the electorate? guest: it does and it hits on the broadest point, which is something is wrong and somebody is to blame. there have been plenty of stories about china and wal- mart, high percentage of goods made there. they want both things.
they want that to not be the case, but they still want to get low prices. i will say this. i go and talk to people in these different places, and i do think there is something of an understanding of what is happening -- it is not like i am a genius -- i look at the numbers in to look long enough you say, real wages have not risen since the mid-1970s. we do not have a lot of good high-paying manufacturing jobs anymore. you have to say to yourself, we can try things like tax cuts for american goods, but the world is a fundamentally different place now than it was 10 years ago. -- even 20 years ago. and it will be more different overtime. host: when you look at the mood of the electorate across the country, obverses the culture of
washington, d.c., because democrats have been in control. republicans were in control before that. both parties put forward solutions, and they passed laws, but when they do that, and the way they go about doing that, like the bailout for the banks, are they just completely missing each other and they do not speak the language of the electorate? guest: i think that is part of it. it is hard to explain. is like a lot of the argument the obama administration is trying to havel with the public. it would have been so much worse without the stimulus. without tarp we would have had a depression. they are talking past each other in that way i think it is our fault in the media that we do not do a good job of explaining these things.
you have to explain it over and over again to get through to people what you think is going on, because nobody knows for sure. but the other problem is, we are debating the health care reform bill. it has not even been enacted yet. people are talking about, i hate the health care reform bill and what is going to american healthcare. it is really not doing anything right now. you may be right, maybe it is horrible, but we can talk about that when it is actually enacted. now there is frustration. wanting to have something happen now. that is a real problem. host: republic the line. in maryland. good morning carrot caller. caller: there are 20 million people working for the federal and government. about 3 million people work for the military. during this deep recession, the number of federal employees who earn more than $100,000 has gone
from 13% to 19%. i would assume that you are arrayed washington, d.c., is a boom town -- you would rate washington, d.c. as a boom town, they say there are plenty of jobs. one out of every five federal employees is making more than $100,000. is it conceivable that one more million people working for the federal government could make the economy better? is there -- as any full grown, thinking american believe that? guest: that is a great call. i would have to say that i do
not know the numbers. the number seaside's are very interesting. i need to look them up and see if they are true -- the numbers he cites are very interesting. washington, d.c., there is not a lot of new housing construction. there is not a lot of rumor to put anything else. -- t herhere is not a lot of room to put anything else. when you have hard economic times, people ask for more from the government. it would not surprise me to seek government employment growth over the next decade because i think we have a lot of things, problems we have to manage, and there will be a lot of anger about that. that is a lot of what the tea party is angry about.
there is also having to deal with the way things are. i think the tea party of movement will have a very good november, but once they get their policies in place, i am not sure what that will mean. host: dante chinni is author of a new book, "our patchwork nation", looking at several different communities across our country and coming up with different types of communities in our country. you talk about the tea party anger. here is one more headline -- debt. $60 trillion in debt? trillion is what the congressional budget office
says. is that a sort of mixed message? does that feed into the anger and discontent? guest: people pick the number they want to make the printer they want to make. i think the national debt number -- this is why the economy will not jump start any time soon is the american consumer debt was about $13 trillion in early 2009. that is equivalent to u.s. and gdp. you have to pay that off -- the u.s. economy is 3/4 consumer spending. people do not spend when they are poor. they are less likely to spend. they are worried about losing their jobs. people want to get the economy going. i do, too.
i think it is a complex discussion. host: jackie in washington, d.c. caller: i would like to respond to the previous a gentlemen's call about washington being prosperous. there is a lot of joblessness in this area. i called to say is that we may have lost manufacturing but we have not lost the knowledge, the how-to principle of manufacturing. and i would suggest for those people who live in certain areas, who have certain expertise, if they could form a corporate and develop things that are good, even though it may be a little more expensive, and let's cut our ties with all of these foreign purchases. that is what i wanted to say. guest: that is a tough thing to
do. we are in so far right now. there is one interesting thing the caller said. we have smart people. they should come together and come up with ideas. build products in new ways of fixing the economy, getting us going again. i think that is what is happening. we talk in the book about what will happen economically. one community that will do well over the next decade is college towns. they are going to receive a lot of money for research and development, and they will do well. that is one thing we talk a lot about in the book. i think we will go to a hard decade, but we will not go through it equally. some places will do better than other. places with a lot of education will do well and they will get a lot of money from the federal government for research and development. if you go to these towns, they are being encouraged to start thinking much more about what
they want to do commercially. we are happy to have your brain here, but it is not bad for you to think like an entrepreneur. that is an interesting development. host: one state hit hard even before the recession is michigan. this next call is from lavonia. caller: i have several concerns about loss of manufacturing jobs in this country. manufacturing used to be a place where high school graduates could earn a decent living and buy a house and so forth. but if they are going to be offered nothing but low-paying, barely better than basic low wages, there is really going to be a lot of unrest in this country. the second point i am concerned about is, in world war ii, we
basically won that war by auto manufacturing the japanese and germans. -- by out manufacturing the japanese and germans. i served in world war ii. the germans did not have an air force. so we were able to invade. host: let me jump in. what did you do for a living? are you retired now? caller: i am 84. i was working until i was 82 because i enjoyed what i was doing. i had a consulting business. host: can i ask you about your city of lavonia. there are a couple of new manufacturing plants for batteries to put in electric cars. what does that mean for your community? are you seeing a new people coming in?
caller: there is in such as huge a loss with the automotive cutting very deeply, that there is still a great break hole in manufacturing jobs, which were decent-paying jobs. the state of michigan is really facing some very hard times, i think. host: dante chinni, what did you hear there? guest: i grew up there. i know exactly what he is talking about. the one thing i agree with is that when you have this many people who have gone from earning this much money, you will have unrest. i am not saying there will be writing in the streets, but you will have -- there will be rioting in the streets, but you will have the rise of a populist movement in this country.
i do not think the tea party movement is a serious populist movement. a populist movement is angry at the business establishment. they would not be in favor of tax cuts for people earning over $250,000. i think in the next decade, we will see a rise of the serious populist movement. i think he is right. when things are bad, people get angry, and they are looking for answers. i think there will be some anger in the u.s. host: coming up next, we will talk about the tea party candidates, those who won their party nomination. we will look at t their biographies. dante
>> winner-take-all politics -- how washington made the rich richer and turned its back on the middle class. lawrence hunter will discuss the group which he describes as he describes -- which she describes as an alternative to the aarp. sheila krumholz looks at the latest fund-raising members and the disclosure rules which make it difficult to determine where the money is coming from. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the family research council held its annual values voter summit conference here friday in washington. among the speakers at the event were crossed -- was christine
o'donnell, the republican senate candidate for delaware. her remarks are about 20 minutes. >>an interesting story about the bumblebee -- it is not supposed to fly. its wings make it aerodynamically impossible to fly, and everybody knows that except the bumble bee. everybody knew that christine o'donnell had no chance to defeat mike castle for the republican senate primary. but last week, bumblebees flew. if you would like to meet her, let's bring her on. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome christine o'donnell. ♪ [applause] >> ♪ don't stop believin' hold on ♪
>> thank you. thank you very much. where are my fellow bumblebees from delaware? you guys are doing an awesome job. thank you so much for being here. it is such a delight to be among so many lifelong friends and to have the opportunity to talk to you today about the things that are weighing so heavily on our hearts. think back to about a year-and- a-half ago, when our new leaders took office. think about how you felt then. remember the despondency, the anxiety, even the palpable fear
for the future of our country. i remember the first things cross off the to do list -- crossed off the to-do list of our emboldened leaders -- forcing us to pay for abortions. and in the scholarship program -- ending the scholarship program for students. they hope to escape from the failing government schools in washington, d.c. tell that to pro-choice. the stimulus bill spent $1 trillion on the keynesian fantasy while millions of americans lost their jobs and watched their savings disappear, but it did not end there. they started talking about obama-care. one industry after another was bailed out. our forces in afghanistan and iraq -- confusion everywhere. chatter about withdrawal dates.
plans for closing gitmo and trying terrorists in manhattan. looming supreme court vacancies. do you remember? i do. they were told to curl up in a fetal position and to stay there for the next eight years, thank you very much. well, how things have changed. [laughter] [applause] during those dark days when common-sense, patriotic americans were looking for some silver lining, they stumbled upon the constitution. you see, a funny thing happened on our way to the sideline. those of us who had toiled for years in the value movement found ourselves surrounded by americans who rediscovered the most fundamental value of all -- liberty.
these americans were finding answers to the current problem that threatens our future was being answered by the wisdom of our once-threatened pass. -- past. our friends and neighbors began to join us at rallies and signs." and they were waving the homemade signs. they're looking around and saying, as speaker gingrich often said,there are more of us than there are of them. [applause] and so there are, because this is america. the ruling-class elite may try, but they will never have the last word on liberty. there's something about our national dna that insists on shouting at those who would be our masters, you are not the boss of me. [applause] thomas jefferson said the same thing, perhaps more eloquently.
he said, "the issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history -- whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or ruled by a small elite." that is the question, isn't it? and the verdict is in. the small elite do not get us. they call us wacky. they call us wingnuts. we call us, "we, the people." [applause] we do not always agree. we do not always share the same strategy memo is. -- memos. we do not always endorses i the same candidates or speak of the same talking points. we're loud, rowdy, passionate. it reminds me of the c.s. lewis "narnia" books, where the
little girl asks someone about aslan the lion, who represents god. she says was some concern, is he -- with a little concern over the fearsome lion, is he safe? her friend says, safe? who said anything about safe? of course he is not safe. but he's good. [applause] that is what is happening in america today with this grass- roots groundswell, love affair with liberty. it is not tame. but, boy, it sure is good. [applause] they attack us. -- will they attack us? yes. they will steer our backgrounds and distort our records -- smear our backgrounds, distort our records, harassed us, tried to -- harass us, and try to
intimidate us. there is nothing safe about this. is it worth it? is freedom worth it? >> yes! >> is america worth it? >> yes! >> are those inalienable rights worth a little alienation from the beltway popular crowd? i say yes, yes, a thousand times yes. this is no moment for the faint of heart. some of accused us of being an aging product former -- some have accused us of being an aging crowd of reagan staffers and home schoolers. [laughter] [applause] they are trying to marginalize us and put us in a box. they are trying to say we are taking over this party or that campaign. they do not get it. we are not trying to take back
our country. we are our country. [applause] we have always been in charge. this is america. you do not have to assert authority when everyone is on good behavior. it is when the wheels fall off that the grown-ups have to step in and step up. that is what is happening in america today. the grown-ups are taking away the keys. [applause] and if i do say so, we have been awfully patient. we have left the incremental assault on our freedom, property rights, and a stability -- all of it has gone way too long. we have watched the tentacles of big government weasel their way into every part of our lives. bureaucrats and politicians
think they should tell us what kind of light bulbs to use, toilets to flush, cars to drive. they are trying to put electric monitors in your recycling bin. they want to tell businesses what kind of jobs to create, what kind of commercials to run, what kind of food to buy or sell. they want unelected panels of bureaucrats to decide who gets what life-saving medical care. and who is too old or too expensive to be worth saving. they will buy your teenaged daughter an abortion, but not a sugary soda in the school vending machine. [applause] every child going today in -- born today in america already
owes over $200,000 -- his or her piece of the national debt in underfunded, future liabilities. folks, this is not good parenting. what kind of parent puts the bill for today's spending to kids who will have to pay for it tomorrow? did your mom and dad do that to you? mine did not. are these the values that were passed on to you? think about your parents and grandparents and what sacrifices they made so you could have a shot at the american dream. i am one of six kids. my parents taught me that, while life can be hard, hard work makes life better. that is what my parents taught me. it was crowded, loud, and there were a lot of meatballs to make and many mouths to feed. my parents struggle to make ends meet. it was never easy, but they did it. i bet hundreds of you could tell the same story. it was still a struggle as i set out on my own. i never had a high-paying job with a company car.
it took me over a decade to pay my student loans. i never worried about where to dock my yacht to reduce my taxes. [applause] and i will bet most of you did not either. today, the richest, most recession-proof, job-if your costs the people are government -- job-secure class of people are government workers. the average twice the salary of others. they are deep into acquisitions, mergers, and hostile takeovers. it is still not enough. we are told we are not taxed
enough. we're told the dry cleaner down pays four employees -- $300,000 before he pays his four employees needs to pay more taxes. families are forced to dramatically cut their budgets. we're told the government cannot possibly survive on the budget they had just a couple of years ago. the tax hikes coming in january are just another government bailout. this time, the government is bailing out itself. this is not the america my generation has known. we grew up in a time of peace, prosperity, with big dreams and bold risks. as the berlin wall came down, we sat in front of our television and saw the hunger for freedom from the heavy boot of government coming from east europe. as one, lone students stared down at chinese tank in tiananmen square, we saw the audacity of liberty. as the backlog grew in the request for political asylum, we saw the shining city on a hill beckoning to imitate and
create the refuge not only freedom can -- that only freedom can build. the golden arches went up in moscow. here in our own land, family businesses became national chains, walmart, home depot. only in america could that happen. my generation saw american economic genius and glory on display in our stores. we saw what freedom can do. we saw what happens when people have control of their own money, property, labor, ideas, risks, and rewards. maybe that is why it has been so dramatic to see the great american engine of prosperity seize up and stall out. the american economy is in lock down. our generation did not feel the impact of the carter inflation when we were writing our bikes -- riding our bikes on are safe, home town streets, so this is
uncharted territory for us. it is easy for many of us to believe in the fantasy-land narrative about how to fix the problems we now face. we have politicians telling us that we just need to spend more money to avoid national bankruptcy, or the best way to create a job is to endlessly extend unemployment benefits, or to pass thousands of laws that they admit they have not read. answer.at's the americans no longer believe these tall tales. when i talked to people on the campaign trail, i heard frustration with the anti- americanism that is in every alit of the ruling class. -- outlet of the ruling class. americans want our leaders to defend our way of life, not to apologize and tear her down. [applause]
in the diners and at the pig roasts, in the town halls and the church halls, i hear people embrace, for the first time, a vibrant conversation about american values. they reject the narrative that has been imposed on them from the d.c. cocktail crowd. they are digging a pearls of wisdom from the federalist papers and the constitution. it is making a comeback. [applause] it is simply unprecedented in my lifetime. it is a little like the chosen people of israel in the hebrew scriptures to cycle through -- who cycle through periods of blessing and suffering and then returned to the divine principles in their dark days. it is almost as if we're in a season of constitutional repentance. when our country is on the wrong track, we search back to the first covenant -- our founding documents and the old and inspiring values on which they were based. those american values enshrined
in the declaration provide the real answer. i believe that american values are not just some relic from the past, but a clear path to a strong and secure future. i believe they are worth fighting for today. most americans believe this. because there are more robust than there are of them -- more of us than there are of them. [applause] the same principles that made our country great will keep our country great. if we err, let it be on the side of liberty. if we benefit, let it be from working hard and saving smart. let us meet our obligation to god and neighbor by the way of our own hearts and our pocketbooks rather than by government bureaucracy. let us entrust our nation to the public servants who serve the public rather than themselves and who place us above the next
election. let america make peace in our world and on our borders through strength, friendship, and commerce. these are the values and principles that built and can still rebuild a great nation. it was not easy then and it will not be easy now. we will be resisted and we must resist as well. i asked you today to take the -- so i ask you today to take the pledge with me that the first generation of the founders did. -- of dissenters did. they could not see gettysburg or normandy or fallujah. what was required of them is still required of us. it will no doubt be required of our children and of their children. they took a pledge together and that pledge closes out the
declaration of independence. that same pledge will preserve this -- the last, best hope of earth. let us pledge, for the sake of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, let us pledge our lives and sacred fortunes, may god ever bless america. thank you. [applause] god bless you. >> ♪ don't stop believin' don't stop believin' hold on ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> for me or anybody else who is co